For example: What types of people, situations, income, and achievements.
2007-10-29 08:34:42 · 22 answers · asked by Liberal City 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
In my instance, my father was killed when i was six. My mother was a stay at home mom and was not prepared for the situation. We went on General Assistance for some years. She then found some secretarial work, but the Carter/Reagan era economy was extremely hard on the working poor.
My older brother went to the Marines, and my sister to the Army a year later. This eased the burden and got us off of GA. I worked summer jobs for two years, then went into the Air Force when I turned 19. If not for GA, I don't know what my life would be like right now OR if I would have lived beyond 17 on Chicago's South Side.
2007-10-29 08:49:44 · answer #1 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No one.
Not that the government can't or shouldn't provide assistance if it's in the best interest of the country, it's just not something that people /deserve/.
2007-10-29 13:09:47 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well there are people out there who need it for sure. There are many spouses who up and leave. It is hard to raise kids on your own without child care. You can't just collect a check anymore these days. You actually have to work for the money. People who have not been on State assistance don't have the right to judge those people at all. State assistance is there to help parents find a way to get back on their feet when every thing has been ripped away from them. They help with job experience and education. So please don't judge people or the system when you have no clue what it's there for. Better than having a bunch of people and children in the streets. It's a blessing to have that to help out anyone in need. There is all kinds of help for our American citizens, it is there for those who need it. Whether they are disable or need the help in the right direction, for work , and an education.
2007-10-29 08:47:02 · answer #3 · answered by n/a n 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
NOBODY.
The government has NO money. It's the taxpayers who pay for everything the government spends.
If someone paid into their Social Security and Medicare, they should get their money back to spend on emergencies. It's only fair. But make no mistake that this is the government's money. It is NOT. It's your money - if you paid for it, and only the portion you paid for it, with interest equivalent to inflation.
So, basically, if you paid for it, you get your benefits. If not, you don't deserve it.
I don't believe in government assistance. Because the government can only spend other people's money (tax payer's money).
Edit: There is one exception: The military veterans paid with their service and their blood and their lives. The government should return their favor by honoring their service which cannot be measured with money. I think this is the only one category that the government should take care of. My reason is that the service of these veterans are needed for the defense of the nation, and these veterans should be in turn taken care of, at the very least, their medical bills.
To be absolutely fair, it would be great if these politicians who voted for war should pay a higher % out of their salary to pay for the veterans' medical bills.
2007-10-29 08:50:43 · answer #4 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 3⤊ 4⤋
1. Must not make more than povert line. Exceptions: Loss of job. Extent: Temporary, no exceptions.
2. Victims of natural disasters. Must be able to prove you were there. If not, benefits reduced greatly. Extent: Temporary, no exceptions. ( unless maimed to the point of impairment/ disability and can't fill ANY job.)
3. Destitute/poor. 3 chances to get a job with benefits in the meanwhile. Can't get a job? Offer of relocation to job hotspot...3 turn downs, kick them to the curb.
4. Senior citizens. Benefits until a point. Offer of move to rest home, paid. Turned down? Notify family, revoke benefits.
5. Poor mothers with kids. Benefits and job/ babysitting assistance until grad from high school. Mandatory sterilization if more than 2 kids.
2007-10-29 08:52:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
People who are 100% incapable of working...and documented.
People who need temporary assistance to get back on their feet...with follow ups every month to make sure they are attempting.
Children with no health care who's family makes less than the recorded poverty level, and whose parents jobs do not provide health care. Maybe with help to find those parents jobs or education where health care would be available.
2007-10-29 08:52:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
People who honestly did his best not to depend on the government and was unlucky.
2007-10-29 12:11:25 · answer #7 · answered by Sergio Oliveira 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Per the Constitution nobody has any right to claim any assistance from the federal government, and the federal government has no authority to give them any assistance.
2007-10-29 08:47:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
I don't approve of designating people as "deserving" poor and "undeserving".
There should be a minimum level of existence in America that no person should fall below. Food, shelter, clothing, medical treatment. None should be denied who show need.
I love America and I will not see pockets of pestilent slums develop because somebody started ranting for people to quit paying their taxes. It costs money to live in an advanced society.
2007-10-29 08:46:36 · answer #9 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Merit based,
families were not meant to be rasied by the Gov. I have meet people who personally think I work for them because they never had jobs. It makes my blood boil I am surprised I do not stroke out. Anyway the way it is now is the working class supports them selfs and of course the entire non-working class.
With the exception of SSI and Unemployemnet these programs must be brought under control.
2007-10-29 08:41:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋