What an odd situation. I agree with both melon AND bubba. I wonder if you both feel the same too as you both mentioned 2 different types of groups in your replies. (Im not trying to fuel a fight either, so please remain civil and not address each other if that's what it take.)
I hate welfare cheats. I think that is who we are referring to when we talk of the stereotypes? Those who refuse to do their bit. I do not like the idea of supporting bludgers and I do not like the compulsive unemployed. Stereotype it may very well be, but that sterotype exists for one reason. Because they do. I wont speak for America, but I know there are more than one family of 'Paxtons' here. A current affairs show a while back featured an entire family who are on the dole. They not only were without shame at their situation, they revelled in it. The son said he wold not ever look for work as he would not be able to surf as much. What the hell kind of excuse is that? One girl, who I cant recall if she was part of the family, I think she was, said the only work she could find was at McDonalds, but as she was a vegetarian she couldnt do it. That pissed me off for 2 reasons. Firstly because I think we all have to come to terms with our responsibilities some day and accept that we cannot always pick and choose our employment. Sometimes we just have to take what's on offer. And secondly, McDonalds are what 20% meat in the patties? Whatever, it is laziness and it is wrong. I dont like it. I detest having to support those types. I dont adore my job and I dont like paying tax, but I am happy knowing it does go to fixing roads, hospitals, education and those who truly need some help from the government.
On the other hand, aid, crisis welfare etc. I am more than happy that there is a system in place for the ill, the disabled, the mentally disadvantaged. If anything I wish it were more. I'm no economist, but I firmly believe it is better to cut off welfare to those with Paxton Syndrome and distribute it more wisely to those who have no choice. In another thread, a question was asked along the lines of how do you decide when someone has too much? And while I guess there still isnt really an answer to that, what we can do is ascertain what is the minimun requirement for living above the breadline. In Social Policy Writing a few years back, we looked at this issue of welfare and pensions in Australia and we did the western Sydney locality as obviously it varies. We worked out the average income per year requied to live was $30,000. I'm sure its a bit more now. As it stands, the aged pension pays approxiamtely $12,000. Our resources are drained in this department. The government is now forced to begin implementing a faze out plan for the aged pension. They simply cannot keep going with it. Their ultimate goal is to make Australia full of self funded retirees, which is fine. To help with this, they have introduced a 1st home owners grant where they pay up to $7,000 to those purchasing, in a bid to get us owning property. While all this is fine and good, I honestly think as much effort should be made to tighten up the welfare end so that bludgers and cheats dont have such an easy ride and we dont continue to skimp on those who truly need it. I'm not all for ridding it all together either. I dont have any problem with those who are temprarily out of work, who are skilled or trained in a certain field. But after a certain amount of time of not being able to find suitable work in your industry you have to kind of just accept that you have to flip burgers or clean toilets until you do find something better. Unemployment figures are a problem, I know but it doesnt have to be long term. Its quite possible to pick up work in another area, gain more skills, and then find what you really want. Attitudes to work have to change in some instances.