Sheesh. Well, as a society, we’ve brought this upon ourselves. In the guise of helping people, government spends more and more to do more and more for more and more people – it doesn’t seem to end. The problem is, even with reams and reams of regulations and ‘strings’ attached, is it effective in keeping people from gaming the system? Is Government doing what it can, what it should, to keep people from becoming dependent on those handouts?
Not if I read this story. And the picture below came with the story. And when
I saw that, and combined it with the sub-story of this lady:
“We were already too late,” she said. “It’s like impossible (to get a ticket). It gets in the way of people who need it. … If we’re there at 3 a.m. and it’s already too late, what time are you supposed to go?”
Kelley said she was unemployed for a year before recently landing a job. But her bills have stacked up while she was unemployed, and she needs the assistance.
I went "huh? You have got to be kidding me!". Look, I know hardship. I know what it is like to be laid off for quite some time and have had to look for quarters (when my kids were small) and other change so as to buy milk for them. And I know what it is like to say "Christmas gifts or food?". And yes, I have sold stuff to have the necessities – the "stuff" became superfluous. When things are tough, priorities start to be come sharper and sharper in the current reality.
Or should be. But it seems that as Government gets bigger and does more, those individual priorities seem to remain…
… blurry. And yet, in the above picture is a large widescreen TV. Even though their costs have plummeted lately, they are still not exactly "spur of the moment" items. It shows me a mishmash of priorities – bread AND circus. Instead of a TV, how much heat would it have paid for instead? Even down at the pawn shop, it would have brought something, right, and then applied for heating?
And for those that say that I am of a cold heart, let me ask this – who is being more cold-hearted here? Me, who believes that *I* should be doing all I can to take care of my own BEFORE I reach out and beg, or someone who has no problem in complaining that others are not doing enough to pay her bills and provide for her needs?
We just had this discussion when my hamlet’s Budget Committee reviewed its welfare department budget. At one point, the welfare Director was asked "and do you pay cable TV bills?". The answer stunned me: "sometimes we do; after all, it is only $29/month and its for the kids".
The questioner (rightfully, in my mind) went ballistic, as that person knows of people who have gone without cable entirely because of personal financial hardship and who have hard times in paying their property taxes because of their circumstances.
So, think of this – those on welfare can get cable service (on a case by case basis) while those paying the taxes that fund those payments could not afford it themselves.
And then Progressives and Liberals get that "shocked look" when people start complaining about the cost of helping people??
This is one reason why I had no problem when I heard that Mayor Bloomberg wanted to restrict welfare recipients from buying soda with their welfare monies. Welfare should buy the bare necessities – nothing less, but certainly nothing more.
It’s the same when I read about SNAP – the rebranded food stamps program. Too often, I see people gaming the system; if families are too stretched to adequately provide for their families, why do I see the EBT cards at my local grocery store whipped out to pay for a lot of groceries, but then see a "second" purchase of cigarettes and beer and another assorted stuff paid for with cash by the same holder of the EBT card? I don’t smoke and I don’t drink, but TMEW and I look at some of the stuff that does get ‘cash bought’ and go: "why are they doing that – WE wouldn’t buy that for ourselves as it is too expensive"!
We have lost the notion of shame in taking advantage of others. To me, these are ample examples of a too large of a Government – the lack of proper accountability with regards to charity. When I give voluntarily to help someone, I expect that charity to be used for that given purpose. If I find out that the intent of that charity is violated, the charity stops. If I see that charity is being gamed, it stops.
We used to "give charity" when we ran our daycare center and were happy to do so in certain cases when we thought that either our customers or employees needed a helping hand. Yes, there were times that we found out we got suckered – yet, we got grief when we pulled the plug. But that was accountability (of one form).
(H/T: RightWingNews)
