How can the Federal Government help the less fortunate?

1. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago

   Fortunate: "favored by or involving good luck or fortune; lucky." There is a certain amount of luck involved in survival. In life, we seem to be dealt a deck of cards. Some are more fortunate than others. They are born with many advantages and have it much easier than others. Some are sitting pretty and some, not so much.
   
   
   In what ways does/can the Government assist those who are struggling to survive through no fault of their own?

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think the government should be involved in guaranteeing anybody a share of the pie. The only thing the government can do is assure a fair and level playing field for all to ply their talents or lack thereof. There are always going to be some that prosper as a result of beneficial fortune due to their heredity, looks, friends or just plain luck. The government is already a good old boy network of backroom deals and sweetheart legislature that rewards their friends so why should we add another subjective responsibility to the mix?

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         How can you possibly guarantee that level playing field?  Demolish all slums and ghettos, building mansions there?  Guarantee all admittance to Harvard?  Feed everyone with only organic, home grown foods of the highest quality? 
         
         That seems to be a problem now - some say they haven't the same chance even though they live in the same country, state, country and even city as the rich folk.  How will you fix that?

         replyreport
         1. 70

            rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            How about fair tariffs in International trade and equal factory pollution standards and how about equal wages that are not paid in foreign labor markets for starters. The American worker has worked tirelessly to raise their standard of living while the corporations farm their jobs overseas where they don't have to worry about paying wages substandard to those they are selling their products to. This is the biggest deficit that many don't understand. If you continually take away the jobs to make cheaper goods to sell back to those you just unemployed the scheme comes down around you. You can't do this for very long as the cheap products that have been produced will be too expensive at any price if you have no job. Up till now some are just going into debt to feed themselves and cloth their children.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Equal wages.  As in the money required in each country to buy a loaf of bread every 10 minutes?  Because I could be wrong, but suspect that we're badly overpaying in many countries by that standard.  At least the wages we offer overseas seem to attract a LOT of workers.
               
               "Fair" tariffs always seem to mean keep foreign competition out of the country and make trade wars.  Let's not start that one up - it is always a loss for both countries.  Better to do away with all tariffs (and subsidies), in all countries.  No protecting your own industry at the expense of another one somewhere else. 
               
               Equal factory pollution standards all over the world - do you really want to get into making laws, and enforcing them, in every other country?  Do you want them making laws for YOU to follow?
               
               No, what you are really asking for is separation from the world in terms of trade, with workers dictating prices for their labor here.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  You totally don't understand! If the US is to compete as everyone wants in THIS capitalistic economy then how can that be achieved by employing those that are in a substandard socialistic/communist country. They are apples and oranges in comparison. What do you read and where do you get your information? I thought the explanation was as plain as it gets. I will try and bring it to your terms. If you buy a loaf of bread in the US at let's say $2.00. The companies cost is lets say $0.70 to produce it. If you have the bread made in let's say China where the labor is about a quarter of what it is here in the US. Labor to produce something is around 33% of your cost then the labor here is $0.23 whereas in China your labor cost is $0.06. Throw on top of that the overhead saved by having no waste disposal concerns, no health regulations and a lower tariff to export the raw materials than you do in the US, how is an American Company to compete? If we in the US were able to delete the overhead as aforementioned and pay a quarter of the wages as in China I guess you could make bread here and compete. But as we have seen with the Walmart model you can reduce hours to alleviate any overtime and benefits and get the government to pick up the tab on the healthcare Walmart ignores. You really must get with the program here.

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't believe you understood the thrust of the comment.
                     
                     Suppose we all paid our employees in bread; both here and in China.  Employees then trade their bread for money, both yuan and dollars.  The American worker ends up with $10, the chinese with 50 yuan (or whatever the price of 5 loaves of bread is in yuan).  Both receive the same, in goods in their own country. 
                     
                     Is that fair?  If not, why not?  Should Chinese workers, laboring in an American factory built in China, receive 20 loaves of bread per hour instead of 5?  Why?
                     
                     If we wish clean air we will pay the price for that in increase cost of goods.  If not, we will buy Chinese while hoping others will buy the fruits of OUR labor in the US - rather greedy, but that's the way people are. 
                     
                     If we wish to provide healthcare for people that can't afford it, we will do so.  If not, we won't.  That, too, is simple to understand and we have made the choice.  If you wish WalMart to pay for the healthcare of millions of people you will accept that WalMart prices will rise considerably and THAT is something the US population has loudly decreed they do NOT wish to see.

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        Wow! I have tried to explain this as plainly as I can but I can't seem to help you. A barter system between countries as an equalization is so far out there I just can't help you. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one as well. Have a good evening.

                        replyreport
                        1. 94

                           wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                           I'm not getting through at all, I think.  No barter, just pay equivalent to what can be bought.  In other words, pay in China should equate to Chinese conditions and prices, not the US.  If pay in the US is $10, then the pay for the same task in China might be only $1 (converted to yuan) because $1 can buy as much there as $10 can here.  And it's still more than most Chinese employers pay.
                           
                           Don't take the numbers as gospel; it's just an example.

                           replyreport
                           1. 70

                              rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                              Just one more thing and I will leave you to your ruminations on the subject. There is a system in place that equalizes the economic impact in two differing standards of living. It's called a tariff or import tax and that is what has been reduced to unequal measures to the disadvantaged US worker. Offering lower cost, cheaper products by cutting out the two differing standards of living only bolsters those who provide the products. The result is what we have now, cheaper goods for the US consumer, lower wages for the corporations and now a higher standard of living for one country and a lower more equal standard of living for the other. We are now seeing the results of these NAFTA and TPP trade treaties coming into full swing. But the kicker is that the US worker now finds himself out of a job while corporations increase their bottom line.

                              replyreport
                              1. 94

                                 wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                 No.  A tariff is imposed to protect your own worker from the ravages of someone that doesn't need as much to survive.  Whether money or goods, they simply do not need as much. 
                                 
                                 And tariffs have a nasty habit if biting the one that uses them.  They are very seldom productive in the long run, in the big picture, even though the people continue to demand them in their shortsightedness.
                                 
                                 Absolutely the poorer country will see a rising standard of living; isn't that what sharing the wealth is all about?  The liberal view that we are all equal and should all be fed and have computers and cell phones?  Why demand that people on the other side of a line visible only on a map are lesser beings and do not deserve these things just as you do?

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 70

                                    rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                    In your explanation you describe exactly an equalization of living standards as are already in place with an import tax or tariff. The government regulates the living standards and protection to investors through this system. Also in your answer you imply that a capitalist system would be in place to make this differentiation plausible. As you know with any profit based adjusting system the door is wide open to abuses as are evidenced by the imbalance of trade by those that have been able to game the system. Is gaming the system an acceptable reward system?
                                    
                                    For example I recently was in Kmart and noticed a blanket that was made in Pakistan with a retail price of $80.00. I noticed next to it another blanket made in the USA for $89.00. They were comparable in size, weight and materials. We know that labor in Pakistan is around $0.30 per hour. Who is making out on this deal? So with the equalization of the two how is the US made item to survive? And more over how is any standard of living maintained while corporations rack up the profits at the expense of US jobs?
                                    
                                    http://www.pakissan.com/english/news/ne … ewsid=4882

                                    replyreport
                  2. 75

                     junkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     rhamson, I see your point of view and it makes sense.

                     replyreport
   2. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Who are members of the "disadvantaged?"
      Orphans, Indians, Mentally disabled, the elderly… Of course, we support the government (state and federal) in assisting them.

      replyreport
2. 79

   dragonflyflaposted 10 years ago

   The question is framed wrong - it shouldn't be what can the government do for you - it should be what can they do for their selves.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I am waiting for others who try to convince me/us that this is indeed the case and to please explain. One of them says say that the right wingers in congress are preventing the current president from helping the citizens of the USA. I need to know what exactly he has been prevented from doing, (to help the down trodden in our country.)

      replyreport
      1. 79

         dragonflyflaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         When government helps there is always a price and they always say they do it to help you - usually for the children. How can you refuse something for the children? I thinks Claude expressed perfectly way back in the 1500's:
         Claude Frédéric Bastiat - “Justice” (defense of one’s life, liberty, property) has precise limits, but if government power extends further, into philanthropic endeavors, government becomes so limitless that it can grow endlessly. Read more at http://myedren.com/#EeSrRgSdUVJmrcLX.99

         replyreport
3. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago

   Still waiting.  ( junko, here is your Forum… Yoo hoo…)

   replyreport
   1. 79

      dragonflyflaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You have received your answer, you just don't like the answer. What do you believe the government should do?

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Where have you been?  I, Kathryn L Hill, love your answer and understand you perfectly well. But there are those who keep insisting otherwise. I am really hoping they will enter and explain their point of view. I want to learn from them and comprehend why they can't understand the likes of you, me and wilderness!

         replyreport
         1. 79

            dragonflyflaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Awww :-)  Sorry, I don't normally come out to the forum.

            replyreport
4. 94

   wildernessposted 10 years ago

   "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country."   JFK, Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961.
   
   Have we forgotten already?  It seems so...

   replyreport
5. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago

   junko posted:" 'Government has a job to do in the realm of governing' but since President Obama became President Governmentlessness has been the aim of the far Right wing. For the first time in history one major political party has decided to vote in lock-step against any and everything  The President wants. The President's credit card was cancealed as soon as the Tea Party took control of congress and the Nation's purse. The far right has spent the last five years attacking The Federal Government and the President while blocking any and all tax revenue. Austerity after eight years of Republican spending like drunken sailors putting two wars and a drug program that help the drug industry more than older Americans, on the Republican President's credit card. Government " To truly help us" " It is not over for us yet" but because of the collateral damage caused to the American people and the nation's economy because of the obstruction of The President and Federal Goverment by Red State Governments and Obama haters, its close to being over the top."
   
   Kathryn L Hill posted 2 hours ago in reply to this:
   
   They are preventing him from helping us?
   
   If he was given free, reign how would he help us?
   
   Response:
   
   
   "IF! Its five years into an eight year term Kathryn. Nobody can answer that question. We can answer the question, "Since President Bush was given free reign how did he help us?" No President ever had free reign and no President has ever been as disrespected as President Obama. If he had the respect that Bush had your question would have more substance and points of reference…)"  By junko.

   replyreport
6. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago

   Dear junko,
   It is one thing to have an opinion. It is another to be able to explain your opinion so that others may understand why you have it. You stated,
   1."The far right has spent the last five years attacking The Federal Government and the President while blocking any and all tax revenue."
   2. The president has been disrespected.
   3. The president and federal government have been obstructed by the "Red State Governments and the Obama haters."
   4. Collateral damage to the American people has been caused by the "Red State Governments" and "Obama haters"
   5. We are close to being "over the top" and pretty much done for thanks to the obstruction placed in the path of the president/congress.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      junkoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Opinions are not fact. Opinions are personal views and everybody have them too(also). My views since I've been writing on hubpages has been my perspective from the underclass. What I write is not fact but personal observations. If what I write makes sense or ring true its because its ovious to those who seen and heard what I see or hear, not because I know all the answers. I don;t have to justify my opinions to others, my opinions rings true or are uninteresting. I don't usually engage forums but since nothing is happening on Capitol Hill on purpose, I sometimes give my opinion. I have some imteresting hubs on my political view from the underclass (No butcher say his meat stinks) LoL. If anyone would take the time to read and comment on my political views I will be civil and except opinions that add or subtract to what I write

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         Well, maybe you do not comprehend this, but some of us are actually trying to save the nation with what we say here in these forums. I do not know how well read they are... maybe they have very little readership. But I write as though the world were reading. If you do not wish to try and save the nation with your thoughts keyboarded here, suit your self. I thought you might like to try.
         Thanks.

         replyreport
7. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago

   I do declare! No one hates Obama. I would say we WANT to believe him, we hope it will work out as far as his hopes and dreams for a wonderful US economy which everyone can tap into. We differ in regards HOW we are to tap into it!!     
   It is not Obama we hate… I am sure this will be clear, if you just TRY and comprehend what the conservative keyboarders are keyboarding here!
    
        I am no longer middle class due to the across the board raising of all expenses and the lowering of the pay rate for my husband who is a contractor, (not to mention the diminishing availability of construction jobs,) due to the economic situation here in CA. Consequently, now we are "lower class."
   
       I used to send in all kinds of money for charity on a voluntary basis. Now, I can't afford to. This makes me sad. I liked doing it voluntarily. My health care insurance went up and I had to drop it. I will be paying the fine/tax… which will be used for fellow unfortunates. While they may be willing to take every entitlement they can get their hands on, I, for the sake of my own self-respect and sense of independence, take nothing from the People.
   Furthermore, I do not think it is fair... TO THEM!

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      +1  Would that there were more with that attitude.

      replyreport
8. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago

   I could get on food stamps, California Care, Medicaid, Welfare, Disability and Unemployment too, if I so chose… But I don't think its fair to take (what I, my husband or my family and extended family can't provide,) from the people. I would rather NOT live on the Peoples' Assistance! And I wish I had been more focused on my own retirement stash all these years. How silly relying on the government through Social Security!
   
   Hint to the Youth: Plan ahead now! Don't fritter away your time. Get working and get earning. Do any type of work that is available and that you choose! But WORK! And SAVE!
   (While you still have he freedom to do so.)

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Still looking for ways the government helps the disadvantaged.

      replyreport
   2. 94

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Whups!  Unemployment insurance is a little different in that you (or your employer, on your behalf) has paid for an insurance program to cover you.  No different than car insurance or any other insurance program.  If you are entitled to it, take it.  (Although the 2 year extension from the feds is a whole different kettle of fish).

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         oh right. Federal Insurance Contributions Act.
         so, if you are self-employed and you can't afford to pay the insurance then you are at the mercy of whoever you can get to help you.
         Best to get the insurance.

         replyreport
9. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago

   Local state laws I found interesting and beneficial:
   1. WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE
   SECTION 4344340.  The State Department of Health Care Services may maintain a statewide mental health prevention program directed toward a reduction in the need for utilization of the treatment system and the development and strengthening of community support and self-help networks. The State Department of State Hospitals may support the establishment of self-help groups, which may be facilitated by a outside entity, subject to the approval of the hospital
   administrator, at state hospitals.

   replyreport
10. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago

    2. Local CA Law
    224.71.  It is the policy of the state that all youth confined in a facility of the Division of Juvenile Facilities shall have the following rights:
       (a) To live in a safe, healthy, and clean environment conducive to treatment and rehabilitation and where they are treated with dignity and respect.
       (b) To be free from physical, sexual, emotional, or other abuse, or corporal punishment.
       (c) To receive adequate and healthy food and water, sufficient personal hygiene items, and clothing that is adequate and clean.
       (d) To receive adequate and appropriate medical, dental, vision, and mental health services.
       (e) To refuse the administration of psychotropic and other medications consistent with applicable law or unless immediately necessary for the preservation of life or the prevention of serious bodily harm.
       (f) To not be searched for the purpose of harassment or
    humiliation or as a form of discipline or punishment.
       (g) To maintain frequent and continuing contact with parents,
    guardians, siblings, children, and extended family members, through
    visits, telephone calls, and mail.
       (h) To make and receive confidential telephone calls, send and
    receive confidential mail, and have confidential visits with
    attorneys and their authorized representatives,ombudspersons and other advocates, holders of public office, state and federal court
    personnel, and legal service organizations.
       (i) To have fair and equal access to all available services,
    placement, care, treatment, and benefits, and to not be subjected to discrimination or harassment on the basis of actual or perceived race, ethnic group identification, ancestry, national origin, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, mental or physical disability, or HIV status.
       (j) To have regular opportunity for age-appropriate physical exercise and recreation, including time spent outdoors.
       (k) To contact attorneys, ombudspersons and other advocates, and representatives of state or local agencies, regarding conditions of confinement or violations of rights, and to be free from retaliation for making these contacts or complaints.
       (l) To participate in religious services and activities of their choice.
       (m) To not be deprived of any of the following as a disciplinary measure: food, contact with parents, guardians, or attorneys, sleep, exercise, education, bedding, access to religious services, a daily
    shower, a drinking fountain, a toilet, medical services, reading material, or the right to send and receive mail.
       (n) To receive a quality education that complies with state law, to attend age-appropriate school classes and vocational training, and to continue to receive educational services while on disciplinary or medical status.
    etc."
    http://leginfo.public.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di … .70-224.74

    replyreport
11. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago

    Federal level:
    
    Indian tribes were originally recognized as legal parties through treaties, executive orders, or presidential proclamations. The 1934 Indian Reorganization Act played a major role in the development of the concept of federal recognition. It provided recognition to those tribes with which the government already had a relationship. Under its provisions, some non-federally recognized tribes were enabled to become federally recognized.[19]
    Federal tribal recognition grants to tribes the right to certain benefits, and is largely controlled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

    replyreport
12. 56

    Education Answerposted 10 years ago

    One thing the government can do is help people get off of public assistance.  We need to tighten our willingness to perpetually give assistance and help people get job training.  Public assistance CAN breed apathy and a sense of entitlement.  Government assistance should be temporary, a safety net for all of us.  Too many Americans feel that it is a permanent supplementary income.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I agree and of course this is common sense. What if the government gave
       temporarily disavantaged people no interest loans instead of welfare hand-outs?

       replyreport
       1. 94

          wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Wouldn't like that.  Most people live close to the line and a job loss is going to already cost them more than they can afford, let alone what a major medical bill will cost them.  Another loan isn't going to help much is most cases.  And the people on "permanent voluntary" assistance isn't going to even try to pay it back anyway.

          replyreport
          1. 81

             Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

             ...some might want to pay it back . But I guess too few to even implement such a thing.

             replyreport
             1. 94

                wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Sure some would.  The ones that can't afford it but have some ethics and don't like living on charity.  The others, that might be able to pay it back if they would go to work, you will never hear from.

                replyreport
                1. 81

                   Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                   The ones of the former category are quickly dying off, I think. The ones of the later category is, of course, being encouraged today.

                   replyreport
                   1. 94

                      wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                      Sadly, they are.  The big thing today is "What can I get?  What am I entitled to?  What will government give me?  How can I limit what I give to help support my country?"

                      replyreport
                      1. 81

                         Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                         You think they use the word "my?" Maybe that's the problem. Kids are taught all sorts of crazy things about this country. They have no pride any more.
                         (Do I sound like my mother? Pretty panther called gmwilliams "grandma." )
                         Hey, gm…thats a compliment!

                         replyreport
                         1. 94

                            wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                            You're right - they don't view it as "my country".  It is not their country, just their private feeding trough.
                            
                            It IS a compliment.

                            replyreport
                            1. 81

                               Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                               Yes.
                               My fist grandson's name is Alexander Jay  'hill. ( Can you tell I raised my son on the Federalist Papers?

                               replyreport
                               1. 94

                                  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                  

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 81

                                     Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                     Have you studied the thoughts or life of Alexander Hamilton?  I started his biography, but couldn't finish it. I was suprized to learn that he was also a fallible man.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 94

                                        wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                        If I did it was long and and long forgotten.  The name is certainly recognizable to me, but that's all.
                                        
                                        Yeah, most men are fallible.  Even Wilderness!

                                        report
                                     2. 81

                                        Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                                        I would still say "Wilderness for President," even though you are an atheist!

                                        report
       2. 56

          Education Answerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          We're certainly on the same page.  We need to help people help themselves.  Perpetual assistance isn't the solution.

          replyreport
          1. 81

             Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

             I heard a true story about a child in India who was raised in royalty. He was carried everywhere by his servants. When they finally decided he was too heavy to carry anymore, they told him, "Now you must walk."
             He could not.

             replyreport