Originally Posted By ecdc Santorum is claiming he was misquoted. Tough call, this. It certainly seems like something he might say to appease the Confederate flag waving base back on the mainland. OTOH, he's not a dumb guy and has to know if he's trying to win Puerto Rican delegates, that's a pretty stupid way to do it.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper ecdc...maybe it isn't a "popular" belief but there is no doubt that there are a lot of people who think government should basically take care of any need. Earlier there were references to "serve the people". Frankly, if someone believes government should have a translator for the one family in a town who speaks Mandarin Chinese then it isn't a stretch to say that they are of the belief that government exists to provide for all. Govenrment should serve the people to the extent possible.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>there is no doubt that there are a lot of people who think government should basically take care of any need.<< I guess my question is, who are these people? I've never met them. I've worked closely with the poor in different areas and never encountered this idea. I do think government exists to serve its citizens, but that certainly doesn't include everything. Not by a long shot. Polls most certainly don't back you up. There's no evidence, beyond random anecdotal stories about some food stamp abuser, that "a lot of people who think government should take care of any need."
Originally Posted By ecdc Take social security, labeled a "ponzi scheme" by Republicans lately. How well off do you think elderly Americans would've fared during the economic collapse without that? Take my grandma as an example. Her husband worked in a steel mill his whole life, she was a stay-at-home mom, like so many people in the '50s and '60s. My grandpa died nine years ago. What does she have to survive on? Well, without social security, my parents would've had to take care of her, burdening them and further impacting the economy. And she'd be one of the lucky ones. What about the elderly with no family, or children who live thousands of miles away, or children who can barely afford to take care of their own immediate families? There's a million stories out there like this.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I wish it were an exaggeration. (Well, to be fair there may be more than one Mandarin family in town but none of the others, assuming they exist, have ever asked the City to have someone on staff they could speak to in their native language). Until you've worked in government you have no idea what kind of crazy things people expect as typical government services. Here are just a few off the top of my head. *City should have a duck wrangler to get rid of the pesky ducks in my yard. *City should have someone available to fix the plumbing in my house. *City should provide a track to run our remote control cars on. *City should allow me to practice my golf games on the soccer fields. *City should provide a shuttle service from the parking lot to the ball fields so we don't have to walk. *City must provide road signs in my language. (Can you imagine the size of road signs if they were made in every language spoken in a community?) *City must provide me a job. (I suppose life WOULD be easier if anyone that needed a job could go to City Hall and get one). This is just a very small sampling.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't question the legitimacy of Social Security. I do question the idea that it should be the only source of retirement income. It should be a supplement. The idea that society should be able to care for ALL of it's retirees is just not sustainable as has become very apparent.
Originally Posted By fkurucz " I do question the idea that it should be the only source of retirement income." Given how the private sector has all but eliminated pensions for their employees, for a lot of folks, especially the low income crowd that can't afford to save 10% of their income in a 401K, SS is all they're gonna have.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>This is just a very small sampling.<< And the answer was "no", right? These are all anecdotal stories, and all they prove is "there are some screwy people out there". Which I know was your point, but it doesn't relate to government waste, or to the "majority" of anybody.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>but it doesn't relate to government waste, or to the "majority" of anybody.<< Yup. And of course, ask any one of those people about government, I'd bet dollars to donuts they don't think it should hand them everything on a platter. They just aren't very bright people and don't get the dissonance between their own beliefs about government and their own personal needs.
Originally Posted By mele Is it really so awful to request that someone be on staff who might be better able to help me? How about if I knew there was actually a community, albeit very small, who might also benefit? I mean, if I pay taxes, I would assume someone would figure out a way to try to help me. I wouldn't assume that there would be someone right there to help but, yes, I would expect someone there to try. I wouldn't throw a fit when there wasn't someone there to help me (I understand a lot of people do throw fits). I would be upset if I was told to suck it and come back when I learned English. America can't claim to be a "melting pot" if we don't want to even try to work with all of the people we allow to be in our country. (Rant about illegal immigrants starting in 1...2...3...)
Originally Posted By DyGDisney >>>America can't claim to be a "melting pot"<<< GOP'ers don't want a melting pot. They are freaking out because caucasians of European descent will soon be the minority in America. I guess they forgot there were non-caucasian people here first, and the Europeans came, pushed them out and did everything they could to assimilate them.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The same people who complain that people who come here need to learn English tend to be very impatient when dealing with people who are learning to speak English.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Yep, that is it mele. What we do when someone wants something we can't provide is to tell them to "suck it". I even have it on my business cards. Have any of you ever travelled overseas? You do understand that there are many places around the world where people don't speak English, right? If you pay taxes in a small community you deserve police, fire, water, garbage and maybe some other essential services. If the local government can provide more, at the behest of the community, then that is great. But if it cannot then there shouldn't be any outrage when it cannot. The problem with government today is we have a lot of elected officials who want to do everything for everyone without consideration of the ability to PAY for it. If you take in X, you can't spend Y (unless you are the Federal Government). Local governments (at lest here in Florida) are required to have balanced budgets and, therefore, have to make decisions based on priority. I guess I should be humiliated that having a staff member who speaks Chinese in a community with less than .01% of a population that speaks ONLY Chinese is not one of our priorties. I do take some solace that in a community that is 44% Latin we do have staff members who speak Spanish.
Originally Posted By mele << You do understand that there are many places around the world where people don't speak English, right?>> Really? Thanks for the tip, Gulliver. Also, traveling some place is a bit different than being a tax-paying citizen. I would expect them to make reasonable efforts to deal with me as a citizen. I would also do my best to learn the language but I would also hope that someone would help me if needed, even if I hadn't been able to learn how to communicate effectively. Still waiting to find out why it's wrong for someone who pays taxes to ask for help in their native language? Shouldn't a citizen be able to ask for services...or should everyone just wait around and hope that someday their government will catch on?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The US is unique in that it's foundational document states clearly that the government is being established to provide services for the people. There's no humiliation in not having someone on staff that can't speak Mandarin Chinese, but there should be some if the solution is to then send them away instead of trying to find a way to help them get what they need from the government that was created to help them. We are incredibly lucky to live in an age where translators are available by phone and where translation websites are only a few keystrokes away. You don't need to hire anyone - you just need to know where to go to find help. And now that you know that you might need someone to help translate Mandarin Chinese you can probably find a translator to call the next time that person comes around. It doesn't cost anything to go to Google's translation page. There are volunteers out there that will help with translating. Find a way to communicate. Teach them a little English along the way. But remember that not everyone lands here exactly when they want to or when they are fully ready to, and that if you want them to learn English then you are just one of the many teachers that they are looking to for help.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I never, ever said we wouldn't try to help anyone. I did state we would hire a staff member who could speak Mandarin Chinese for the one family in the City that can't speak English. Of course we would try to help as best we could. We would not, however, do something that makes no fiscal sense whatsoever. Government (in all forms) should not spend more than it receives even if that means providing less services for the people.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Government (in all forms) should not spend more than it receives even if that means providing less services for the people.<< In theory, I agree. I think most everyone does. Here's the problem with that: The people who need those services the most have the least amount of power. They aren't the ones coming up with zero tax pledges at age 12 and then getting every Republican member of Congress to sign it. Poor people don't have tax lobbyists. So it begs the question, what do we do with people who need these services, in some cases just to survive, when the super rich keep lobbying to lower taxes so we can't afford the services these people need?
