English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-11-04 00:50:38 · 8 answers · asked by forest lover 2 in Society & Culture Other - Society & Culture

8 answers

About the people themselves? Not too much. Those who collect it aren't so much the problem. Who I DO think about it the leftist government who perpetuates a welfare state. Welfare is institutionalized, and requires a large amount of tax dollars. While the gov't continues to syphon more of our money to fund it, it feeds itself and grows as a result. The result? Fewer businesses to actually hire people so as to get themselves off of welfare. The gov't WANTS people on welfare.
I myself, in the late 70s was on welfare. My mother was a single mother before it was a common fact of life. She got a job eventually, and we were off it, and she was thrilled. I know at least SOME people on welfare would rather not be. Like all groups of people, it takes all kinds.
In my opinion, the welfare recipient is not the problem, it is our government.

2006-11-04 01:32:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

While there are many who for circumstances they could not avoid rightfully should get assistance, there are an equal number of those who prefer to live off the contributions of others.
I have been in the homes of many who get assistance in one way or another. I have seen many sell their food stamps , using the money to gamble or buy drugs. I have seen many where some or all of the family members are obese, I've seen them purchase food with stamps that is void of nutrition, ie candy, chips, soda etc. I have seen homes when the "breeder" sits and watches her big screen TV while the littlest rug rat goes around with a diaper not changed for hours. Meanwhile, she is again pregnant with another that will increase the amount of her welfare check and food stamps. Doesn't matter who the father is, he's not there.

To have a viable effective welfare system, the controls should be very strict and an End Date is mandatory. Able bodied persons should be forced to take a job whether it is to their liking or not under penalty of losing all benefits if the strict guidelines are not met.

2006-11-04 09:35:46 · answer #2 · answered by June smiles 7 · 0 0

I was on welfare for a short time to get on my feet. This short time was actually a couple of years, but I've been working steadily and supporting myself and children for over 10 years now. Without welfare, I don't know exactly what would have happened to me and my family.

That said: I don't understand people who LIVE off of it forever and enjoy the life and feel no responsibility to take care of themselves or learn how to be self-sufficient. I get so angry about people living off assistance and draining resources that could be used to help really needy people. And why welfare provides people with very expensive medications and medical procedures that I cannot have while I'm WORKING and PAYING for medical benefits is absolutely beyond me! I have to go by my insurance companies guidelines--why don't they? If I choose to go out of network or use a non-formulary drug, I have to pay for it. Can't we figure out that this may be a good idea to apply to the welfare recipients? Grrrrr....

So it is safe to say I am ambivalent.

2006-11-04 09:45:13 · answer #3 · answered by Faith 5 · 1 0

Welfare, under the old system, founded during the Great Depression, the federal government provided fairly uniform benefits to the nation's poor – mostly mothers and children – without regard to the details of their personal circumstances, and with no time limit.

The welfare "reform" of the Clinton era consists of two major elements: a revolutionary change in the basic goals set by the federal government; and a dramatic "devolution" of responsibility – turning what used to be a federal, centralized system over to the states.

Reflecting the new federal mission, welfare rules now:

* Require most recipients to work within two years of receiving assistance,
* Limit most assistance to five years total, and
* Let states establish "family caps" to deny additional benefits to mothers for children born while the mothers are already on public assistance.

Many of the new approaches require subjective judgements. A human being has to decide when individual recipients are, say, ready for work and should be cut off from assistance. By and large, those responsibilities are falling to welfare caseworkers – who in the past did little more than hand over checks.

If you read the article of the last link, you can see that having handed welfare over to the individual states, some states are actually gaining success; however it is a long battle to get people off of assistance and make them contributors to society. It is going to take a huge effort, but I believe we should be steadfast and consistent in getting people OFF welfare. It is not being utilized for its intended purpose, therefore allowing people to misuse this basic fundamental that should go to those who TRULY need it (temporarily).

I think that this money could well be used to ensure our elderly have adequate means to get the medication they need. I think we should continue to support the children with good nutrition and education (it is important to teach them while they are young and instill in them that they are capable of sustaining a quality of life that does not require them to be on welfare).

I have relatives that are on the system and have never liked seeing my tax dollars go to help those that are physically and mentally capable of helping themselves. Their children see that kind of lifestyle and follow in suit as soon as they are able. I am glad to see that the reform is in place but would like to see it run at a more aggressive rate. Educate, train and mobilize them; the sooner, the better.

2006-11-04 09:21:39 · answer #4 · answered by terryoulboub 5 · 0 0

I support welfare if it has responsibility attached to it. Like if you a dropped out of school and cant get a job because you got a bunch of drug arrest on your record or had 3 kids before 17 then I think you need to fend for yourself. As long as they know they will get financially supported they will keep abusing the system. Welfare should be for people who get laid off or Katrina victims not for people not doing crap and making bad decisions

2006-11-04 09:10:27 · answer #5 · answered by h nitrogen 5 · 1 1

well I know that there are times in some peoples lives when they need welfare for a short time but I also know people that have never worked in their life and live off the welfare and SSI and I think that is bull crap while I work everyday to make a future for myself they (refering to the individuals I know) sit on their fat butts all night and sleep all day while their kids run around and fend for themselves.

2006-11-04 09:00:30 · answer #6 · answered by Sexy T 2 · 1 0

unless they are the victim of some kind of disaster or can prove an inability to work, then I dont think that they deserve anything. They need to get out and work for a living like I do!

2006-11-04 08:54:29 · answer #7 · answered by Bistro 7 · 1 0

I know one thing they waste the most food . fact

2006-11-04 08:53:42 · answer #8 · answered by garyhirtz 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers