Saving state by hurting our towns

Full story: Evening Sun 36
To Sen. Richard Alloway and Reps. Dan Moul and Will Tallman: Cutting services to some of our most vulnerable citizens may solve the state budget woes, but it will impact severely on the quality of life of the people in the communities where these vulnerable citizens live - your community and mine. Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
reality

Mont Alto, PA

#1 May 28, 2011
This is the main difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans believe in self-responsibility. Whether then ask for things we seek to earn them. Social programs do serve a purpose, but there are other ways to fund them besides the state. Church communities and individuals themselves can provide for the needs of the needy. Why burden the buraucracy to pay for these things. The state is not nearly as efficient in serving the needy then those in the community. Instead of seeking more and more from the government which is already overburdened and to big to sustain itself.....Lastly whatever happened to being responsable for oneself. While their are those that are born into this world at a disadvantage, and there are tough economic times, alot of people take advantage of social programs when they truly don't need them/want to seek work which adds to the cost
Reality

Greensboro, NC

#2 May 28, 2011
reality wrote:
This is the main difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans believe in self-responsibility. Whether then ask for things we seek to earn them. Social programs do serve a purpose, but there are other ways to fund them besides the state. Church communities and individuals themselves can provide for the needs of the needy. Why burden the buraucracy to pay for these things. The state is not nearly as efficient in serving the needy then those in the community. Instead of seeking more and more from the government which is already overburdened and to big to sustain itself.....Lastly whatever happened to being responsable for oneself. While their are those that are born into this world at a disadvantage, and there are tough economic times, alot of people take advantage of social programs when they truly don't need them/want to seek work which adds to the cost
Why burden the already short funded churchs who have to take donations from the people anyway to fund those programs that they do support. Those that don't enter the world with trustfunds have a difficult enogh time. Taking away programs that actually help is just another slap in the face to those in need. That is what Republicans don't or won't understand and Democrats forget.
Reality

Greensboro, NC

#3 May 28, 2011
reality wrote:
This is the main difference between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans believe in self-responsibility. Whether then ask for things we seek to earn them. Social programs do serve a purpose, but there are other ways to fund them besides the state. Church communities and individuals themselves can provide for the needs of the needy. Why burden the buraucracy to pay for these things. The state is not nearly as efficient in serving the needy then those in the community. Instead of seeking more and more from the government which is already overburdened and to big to sustain itself.....Lastly whatever happened to being responsable for oneself. While their are those that are born into this world at a disadvantage, and there are tough economic times, alot of people take advantage of social programs when they truly don't need them/want to seek work which adds to the cost
Sorry my bad using the same name didn't realize it until I was done typing and posted.
Anonymous

Hanover, PA

#4 May 29, 2011
Programs for hand outs are what partly led to a bloated government. Our government is not supposed to be a business. It's also not supposed to sustain everyone. Jesus, get a job. There are things that people need to maybe get back on their feet, I get that. But teaching them to stay in the system is all they do while funds are already sucked dry. There's no more blood for the leeches to suck. Cutting programs will also cut jobs, but once again, bloated government. It's needed. A lot needs to be cut and simplified.

Leave someone with truly nothing and watch how quick they'd figure out what they need to do. Granted, if they're mentally stable. It's so simple. You get a job, right? Then you pay these things called "bills".

I don't even want to hear the day care or child cost/woman arguments because that would be taken care of easily. The non-custodial parent is responsible to pay for those things, including health insurance. It's required. On top of the monetary support payments as well. Then you can get government assistance for your rent/basically everything else. This crap makes me want to beat my head against the wall because they just make it look like they're victims.

Sorry all who support these things either are on it and collect the entitlements or their job relies on it.
Tina

Media, PA

#5 May 29, 2011
Anonymous how can you say you don't want to hear about women and children - if your mother, sister, or daughter were being abused you would just turn your back correct? Many women and children stay in an abusive relationship because they can't afford to break away from it. Some social programs give them the opportunity to get back on their feet so they can live a safe life. Also what about families with a disabled child insurance doesn't cover everything nor does all employers offer insurance. Obviously your life is perfect and you have never had to utilize these services. I pray you never have to experience your house being burnt to the ground, lose your job or become physically impaired because there might not be a social service agency left to assist you.
Simple Truth

Biglerville, PA

#6 May 29, 2011
Anonymous wrote:
Programs for hand outs are what partly led to a bloated government. Our government is not supposed to be a business. It's also not supposed to sustain everyone. Jesus, get a job. There are things that people need to maybe get back on their feet, I get that. But teaching them to stay in the system is all they do while funds are already sucked dry. There's no more blood for the leeches to suck. Cutting programs will also cut jobs, but once again, bloated government. It's needed. A lot needs to be cut and simplified.
Leave someone with truly nothing and watch how quick they'd figure out what they need to do. Granted, if they're mentally stable. It's so simple. You get a job, right? Then you pay these things called "bills".
I don't even want to hear the day care or child cost/woman arguments because that would be taken care of easily. The non-custodial parent is responsible to pay for those things, including health insurance. It's required. On top of the monetary support payments as well. Then you can get government assistance for your rent/basically everything else. This crap makes me want to beat my head against the wall because they just make it look like they're victims.
Sorry all who support these things either are on it and collect the entitlements or their job relies on it.
Your frustration comes through loud and clear, Anonymous, however, such feelings are not based in the harsh realities that many in our area must face each and every day. Read the article again - most of the programs are to benefit the working poor. Why would a parent need daycare assistance if they didn't have a job?

The simple truth is wages have not kept up with the rate of inflation. Corporations and businesses resist the mere suggestion that wages and or taxes need to be increased in order to close the gap - which then places the burden squarely on the shoulders of responsible taxpayers who lack political clout or "loopholes." Voter ire is easy to understand but many are angry with the wrong people.

Eliminating services that benefit the working poor won't ease the tax burden placed on the middle class (what's left of it) because the services being targeted are only a fraction of the overall budget. Suggesting the human cost be considered, especially in regard to children, is probably a waste because most prefer to play the blame game (bash the poor for being poor) or would rather remain blind to the problem. Easy to hate, marginalize or dehumanize thousands of people you don't personally know but perhaps they are about to become more visible? Would you be able to look a homeless/hungry child in the eye and still call him or her a bloodsucking leech?

The burden should be placed on non-custodial parents but the truth is many are equally as poor as custodial parents or would rather go to jail (at the expense of taxpayers) than hand over a nickel to support their children. A little known fact is once the absent parent finally begins to make payments any cash assistance the custodial parent received is deducted from the support check. So it ends up as a lose/lose situation for a lot of people.

A single parent with a net weekly income of $240 can't possibly afford daycare, rent, utilities and food without some form of assistance. Suggesting that such work two or three jobs isn't practical because someone still has to watch the children while they are out of the home. Suggesting they continue their education will soon become a joke because that funding is about to disappear as well. Suggesting area churches take up the slack also isn't realistic because donations tend to drop off during economic downturns, and even when the coffers are full it still wouldn't be enough.

There are no simple answers but opinions worth having should be based on factual information. Many who rely on these programs are not frauds, leeches or any such thing - they work every bit as hard as you do but happen to earn less. Is that a crime?
A concerned Citizen

Shermans Dale, PA

#7 May 29, 2011
Anonymous wrote:
Programs for hand outs are what partly led to a bloated government. Our government is not supposed to be a business. It's also not supposed to sustain everyone. Jesus, get a job. There are things that people need to maybe get back on their feet, I get that. But teaching them to stay in the system is all they do while funds are already sucked dry. There's no more blood for the leeches to suck. Cutting programs will also cut jobs, but once again, bloated government. It's needed. A lot needs to be cut and simplified.
Leave someone with truly nothing and watch how quick they'd figure out what they need to do. Granted, if they're mentally stable. It's so simple. You get a job, right? Then you pay these things called "bills".
I don't even want to hear the day care or child cost/woman arguments because that would be taken care of easily. The non-custodial parent is responsible to pay for those things, including health insurance. It's required. On top of the monetary support payments as well. Then you can get government assistance for your rent/basically everything else. This crap makes me want to beat my head against the wall because they just make it look like they're victims.
Sorry all who support these things either are on it and collect the entitlements or their job relies on it.
Boy, have you lost touch with reality.There are many
people out there who have not had the privileged life that you obviously have had. You are telling social service consumers to go out and get a job. Well, your head must be in the sand. There aren't many jobs available, and those that are available are either for professionals or are very low paying.Programs for children should not be cut! Children are our future. If anything, there should be more money put into programs for children.
Tom

Gardners, PA

#8 May 29, 2011
When poverty is no longer comfortable maybe people will climb out of it.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#9 May 29, 2011
Hey Fred...cutting social services IS cutting ineffective state government.
A child Advocate

Shermans Dale, PA

#10 May 29, 2011
I agree that there needs to be some type of welfare reform. However, I do not agree with cutting educational programs for children. If we want to see a shift in those dependent on welfare, we need to start with the youngest of our citizens. Programs that work with children at a very young age have been proven to give them a better chance at succeeding in school. There is a wonderful program for 2-3 year olds that serves the greater Hanover area. This program brings literacy and education into the home. Children who participate in this program are better prepared for pre-school, kindergarten, etc. Many families in this program are lower income, but not necessarily welfare recipients. Many of them do not qualify for Head Start. Private pre-schools are very expensive and keep a lot of families on a tight budget out. Has anyone thought about what will happen to these children? If you think that early education is not important, then think again. Ask any kindergarten teacher who has had to deal with a classroom full of students when some of those students have had little to no early education. The children who have not had any pre-school experiences have greater challenges to face. Why would anyone want to take services away from a child? By doing so, there will be greater costs down the road to educate them and bring them up to the level they should be. To our Senators and Representatives who have been elected by us: Please do not cut programs for children. Subsidized daycare is a necessity for women to work. The Parent-Child Home Program is a necessity for many children who would otherwise not have any early childhood experiences. This program is also a support to the parents, sometimes grandparents raising their grandchildren, guardians, and foster parents. Many children already diagnosed with special needs also receive educational support from this program. Cutting this program will be a loss to this community and the entire state of Pennsylvania. As citizens, we need to stand up and advocate for our children.
dog1

Hanover, PA

#11 May 29, 2011
The Republicans would rather walk over the homeless then reach down and give them a hand to get on there feet.
Penn

Greensboro, NC

#12 May 29, 2011
dog1 wrote:
The Republicans would rather walk over the homeless then reach down and give them a hand to get on there feet.
It does hurt the whole "christian" angle doesn't it. Except I have know Democrats that would act the same way, complete with hand sanitizer.
Junior

Boiling Springs, PA

#13 May 29, 2011
A concerned Citizen wrote:
<quoted text>Boy, have you lost touch with reality.There are many
people out there who have not had the privileged life that you obviously have had. You are telling social service consumers to go out and get a job. Well, your head must be in the sand. There aren't many jobs available, and those that are available are either for professionals or are very low paying.Programs for children should not be cut! Children are our future. If anything, there should be more money put into programs for children.
It's not a privileged life, it's call working for what you get. I agree with both of you to a point. You state that the jobs available are either for professionals or very low paying. Locally, I agree with this statement. However, I myself travel almost an hour to work from where I live and I work 7 days a week. My argument is that society has become lazy. I also for a fact that where I work has hired and is still hiring for well paying jobs. The problem is, people see a 7 day a week job and they back away. They want a GOOD PAYING job, but don't want to work. Therefore my view of the way most see welfare. WHY work if you can get paid for doing nothing? I personally have known people on "state assistance" for 2-3 years now with no intention of trying to find a job. There ARE jobs out there, some people are just too lazy to go find them!
Junior

Boiling Springs, PA

#14 May 29, 2011
dog1 wrote:
The Republicans would rather walk over the homeless then reach down and give them a hand to get on there feet.
If you think any member of any political party would help those in need, you need a reality check! BIG GOVERNMENT looks out for one person and one person only! THEMSELVES!!!
Reader from Abbottstown

York, PA

#15 May 29, 2011
Anonymous wrote:
Programs for hand outs are what partly led to a bloated government. Our government is not supposed to be a business. It's also not supposed to sustain everyone. Jesus, get a job. There are things that people need to maybe get back on their feet, I get that. But teaching them to stay in the system is all they do while funds are already sucked dry. There's no more blood for the leeches to suck. Cutting programs will also cut jobs, but once again, bloated government. It's needed. A lot needs to be cut and simplified.
Leave someone with truly nothing and watch how quick they'd figure out what they need to do. Granted, if they're mentally stable. It's so simple. You get a job, right? Then you pay these things called "bills".
I don't even want to hear the day care or child cost/woman arguments because that would be taken care of easily. The non-custodial parent is responsible to pay for those things, including health insurance. It's required. On top of the monetary support payments as well. Then you can get government assistance for your rent/basically everything else. This crap makes me want to beat my head against the wall because they just make it look like they're victims.
Sorry all who support these things either are on it and collect the entitlements or their job relies on it.
Interesting how you want to eliminate the government handouts yet suggest government assistance for rent/basically everything else. Sounds like a double standard to me.
Reader from Abbottstown

York, PA

#16 May 29, 2011
Junior wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a privileged life, it's call working for what you get. I agree with both of you to a point. You state that the jobs available are either for professionals or very low paying. Locally, I agree with this statement. However, I myself travel almost an hour to work from where I live and I work 7 days a week. My argument is that society has become lazy. I also for a fact that where I work has hired and is still hiring for well paying jobs. The problem is, people see a 7 day a week job and they back away. They want a GOOD PAYING job, but don't want to work. Therefore my view of the way most see welfare. WHY work if you can get paid for doing nothing? I personally have known people on "state assistance" for 2-3 years now with no intention of trying to find a job. There ARE jobs out there, some people are just too lazy to go find them!
I'm glad that you are interested in traveling an hour to get to work I assume you mean one way so that's at least a 10 hour day every day. Many people don't have the transportation or the finances to do that. Also I hope that you don't have a family because you are very nearly a non resident parent with little to no time to spend with your kids. That's not to mention that a single parent couldn't do that because it is extreamly hard to find any kind of childcare for the weekend.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#17 May 29, 2011
dog1 wrote:
The Republicans would rather walk over the homeless then reach down and give them a hand to get on there feet.
Utter nonsense.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#18 May 29, 2011
Junior wrote:
<quoted text>
They want a GOOD PAYING job, but don't want to work.
BINGO!!!

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#19 May 29, 2011
Reader from Abbottstown wrote:
<quoted text>
Many people don't have the transportation or the finances to do that.
Then start your own business.
Penn

Greensboro, NC

#20 May 29, 2011
Reader from Abbottstown wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm glad that you are interested in traveling an hour to get to work I assume you mean one way so that's at least a 10 hour day every day. Many people don't have the transportation or the finances to do that. Also I hope that you don't have a family because you are very nearly a non resident parent with little to no time to spend with your kids. That's not to mention that a single parent couldn't do that because it is extreamly hard to find any kind of childcare for the weekend.
My father traveled just as far to a job that barley paid and he was a single parent. It can be done, it stinks but it can be done if someone pushes themselves and doesn't let distance be a impedment to a job to see that his family is taken care of. In short he put his family ahead of himself.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Littlestown Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Snyder's of Hanover (Aug '09) 14 hr Wharfs for cape cod 5,691
Bald Eagle Live Stream, Hanover Thu Birder1810 1
Carl's Creations: A once-blooming business says... Feb 26 Steve Gratman 2
"Thank you for your service"? (Dec '13) Feb 20 anon 8
Police: Pair robbed Rutter's (Jan '10) Feb 15 anonymous 52
Police talk about ways to deter home burglaries Feb 10 Just a thought 4
Review: Dean's Auto Plaza (Sep '13) Feb 8 Lisa m and family 9
Littlestown Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Littlestown People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:54 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:54AM
Why Shelton Should Be Browns' Top Target
NBC Sports 4:57 AM
Friday morning one-liners
Bleacher Report 5:46 AM
2015 Fantasy Football Outlook for Buffalo Bills Stars
Bleacher Report 7:10 AM
Best Draft-Day Contingency Plans for Baltimore Ravens
NBC Sports10:04 AM
Jacoby Jones lands with Chargers