The state of Washington (USA) has to pay out millions of dollars a year for Wallmart employees that don't make enough and need food stamp assistance. Once this stops I will THINK about buying things from them. Until then, no way. Pay better, livable wages first.
Maybe the state of Washington (USA) needs to stop paying out millions of dollars to Walmart employees that is causing them to be enslaved in a lower social-economical life!
If the government handouts stop and they can't make it on a Walmart paycheck, what will the Walmart workers do? Well, there is always looking for a better job. If not here, move! If you think you are worth more, demand more! Sell yourself. Start your own business. Why is it there are people with stories like, I came into town with but a suitcase and $200.00 bucks and now I own my own company, employ "x" amount of people and make very good money? Why can this person do it and a Walmart worker can't. Go back to school. I hear this all the time, I don't have the money and I can't get a loan. Scrimp and save, it may take double the years to complete your education, but others have done it in the past. Why can't the poor Walmart worker? Why can't the poor Walmart worker, work hard for Walmart and if truly appreciated by Walmart, be promoted. I bet Walmart can drag out some examples of promotion from within that has been done before. What is it with this society that expects things to be handed to them on a silver platter, 15 minutes ago? A deprivation in todays mindset is Starbucks being out of your favorite coffee. I loved it when Michele Obama was at a soup kitchen and a benefactor was taking pictures of Michele with their
Cell Phone camera. Which begs to ask, "If this unidentified meal recipient is too poor to buy his own food, how does he afford a cellphone? And if he is homeless, where do they send the cellphone bills?" I bet there is some government program that gives out cell phones. Yeah, let's talk about priorities.
The more you depend upon government charity, the less you depend on yourself to get out of the situation you are in. And side by side, who doles out more? Who pays more? Walmart? Or the US Government? Tally up what you'd receive from both. Added together, I'm sure it looks great. Side by side, I'll bet you learn, that for all its talk about livable wage, the US government doesn't own up to all the rhetoric it espouses!
Back in the day, my English mother completed her full education and was employed at aged sixteen at a UK mail room. She married my father who at the time was in the Air Force stationed in England. As newlyweds they came back to America, got what jobs they could. My mother eventually got a job from a man who started his business in the trunk of his car. My father would help out with this startup company, after working his full time job working for the government (Civil Service mechanic at a Naval Base). In the end, my moms boss had three production plants in two states. My mom, with no accounting degree but just plain street smarts, rose to the level of comptroller and was her boss's right hand with regards to his business. My parents stayed with my father's parents for a while, then rented an apartment, then rented a house and then purchased a house over many years. They never relied on the government, they lived within their means and if they needed more they'd work more. It was that simple! What?! People can't do that today? Or won't?! (barring an economic recession, brought on by greedy Wall Streeters and unscrupulous politicians policies and made worse by the current crop of inept politicians).
"The Founders had a deep concern for the poor and needy. Disciples of the collectivist Left in the Founders day as well as our own have insisted that compassion for the poor requires that the federal government become involved in taking from the haves and giving to the have nots. Benjamin Franklin had been one of the have nots, and after living several years in England where he saw government welfare programs in operation, he had considerable to say about these public charities and their counterproductive compassion.
Franklin wrote a whole essay on the subject and told one of his friends: I have long been of your opinion, that your legal provision for the poor (in England ) is a very great evil, operating as it does to the encouragement of idleness. We have followed your example, and begin now to see our error, and, I hope, shall reform it.
Compassion which breeds debilitating dependency and weakness is counterproductive.
Compassion which blunts the desire or necessity to work for a living is counterproductive.
Compassion which smothers the instinct to strive and excel is counterproductive.
Nevertheless, the Founders recognized that it is a mandate of God to help the poor and underprivileged. It is interesting how they said this should be done.
Franklin wrote: To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity; it is godlike; but, if we provide encouragement for laziness, and supports for folly, may we not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed want and misery as the proper punishments for, and cautions against, as well as necessary consequences of, idleness and extravagance? When ever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence , and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good.
Nearly all of the Founders seem to have acquired deep convictions that assisting those in need had to be done through means which might be called calculated compassion.
Highlights from their writings suggest the following:
Do not completely care for the needymerely help them to help themselves.
Give the poor the satisfaction of earned achievement instead of rewarding them without achievement.
Allow the poor to climb the appreciation ladderfrom tents to cabins, cabins to cottages, cottages to comfortable houses.
Where emergency help is provided, do not prolong it to the point where it becomes habitual.
Strictly enforce the scale of fixed responsibility. The first and foremost level of responsibility is with the individual himself; the second level is the family; then the church; next the community; finally the county, and, in a disaster or emergency, the state. Under no circumstances was the federal government to become involved in public welfare. The Founders felt it would corrupt the government and also the poor. No constitutional authority exists for the federal government to participate in so-called social welfare programs. (Making of America p 218-220)
The U. S. Constitution states in Article I, section 8: The people of the states empower the Congress to expend money (for the enumerated purposes listed in Article I, section 8), provided it is done in a way that benefits the general welfare of the whole people. Thomas Jefferson explained that this clause was not a grant of power to spend for the general welfare of the people, but was intended to limit the power of taxation to matters which provided for the welfare of the Union or the welfare of the whole nation. In other words, federal taxes could not be levied for states, countries, cities, or special interest groups." -
What ever happen to that way of thinking. American Ruggedness, Individualism, Personal Responsibilty. You don't hear it from todays politicians. The Bernie Madoffs of today, from both parties up in Washingotn DC, are too busy buying off your vote!
