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

Walter Williams thinks so...
http://www.capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=4840

2006-11-19 01:00:38 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

13 answers

Yes. It's a not so subtle way of telling certain people that they are not good enough to make something of themselves. That they need government handouts. This secures votes for certain candidates.

2006-11-19 01:04:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4 3

In a pinch no, but in a legacy from one generation into the sloth of the next Yes! Rich brats are on welfare, and for the most pursue their own pleasure, and know no meaningful work. Their life is a wreck, and very little chance of redemption, unless you take their wealth that they are depending on to carry their pursuit. Look at the history of the great industrialists of this country, a lot lost fortune, gained it back, lost it, got it back, and never gave up. A person that is given every want, would sink and not recover, because the fight for life and the awareness of what is of value and it's priority, or order is not in them. I see a greater depression than the last one as the only thing to save us, like the rise and fall of the past civilizations. People real quick like, will reavaluate their lives, then realize what is important.

2006-11-19 01:47:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

Yes definitely that along with many other things our own greed being the biggest culprit.. I'm on benefits and i hate it.. I wanted to complete my 3 year course to become a riding instructor but when my only daughter had her 16 th birthday i was taken off income support and put on job seekers allowance who intern told me i could not complete my 3rd and final year of my course as the course was for 16hrs a week and the DWP would only allow me to study for 15 hours a week not only that but the new college introduced new fees which meant if i worked i would have to pay not only a £1000 for the course but also for each of my assessments and exams that i needed to qualify as a teacher which could have mounted up to another £1000+ so there was know way as a single parent i could have been able to work,continue supporting my daughter through her studies and complete my own final year of studies also..Now to top it off my daughter has runaway from home I've lost my home as it is a family residence and I'm now classed as a single person with no responsibility's so i have to down size to a 1bedroom flat with no garden for my pet dog and no bloody outlook whatsoever I've had to move away from all my family and friends just because the welfare state said i can no longer stay where i am due to my circumstances changing I've never lived alone and I'm terrified

2006-11-19 01:37:24 · answer #3 · answered by . 6 · 0 0

Welfare doesn't wreck families, but poorly implemented welfare programs do.

The way welfare SHOULD work, is that it should help those going through hard times. Ideally, the program should offer some sort of skillset training and provide support until the family can get stable income again.

That is not how it works however. When you're on welfare, you go and try to get a job to get off welfare. You're job might not pay alot. The problem is, once you get a job your benefits get cut. Not by a little, but by a substantial fraction. Now you're worse off than when you had no job.

That doesn't encourage people to get back on their feet. That encourages people to stay on their backs.

The system needs an overhaul. But that will cost money and we're already spending far more than taxes are pulling in.

~X~

2006-11-19 01:30:40 · answer #4 · answered by X 4 · 1 2

Your argument is incorrect. adverse spend maximum of their money on nutrition, housing and entertainment, all of that are made interior the U. S.. the only chinese language issues that adverse purchase are clothing and electronics, yet that would not ensue too oftentimes as those are stable products which final a protracted time. the rationalization welfare hurts the financial device is that it discourages people from working, so financial device produces much less stuff.

2016-12-29 05:21:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Walter Williams is a wise man.

2006-11-19 01:41:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Until you fix the capitalist system to distribute wealth and opportunity more equitably, welfare is a fact of life.

Of course, if someone figures out how to grow wealth and opportunity on trees, then all our problems will be solved. You won't have to be concerned about distributional issues (other than who controls the patent on that technology)!

2006-11-19 02:24:42 · answer #7 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 0 2

Welfare is good is it is need short-term, or a person is disabled, temporarily unemployed, etc.

It can wreck a family, and suck them into permanent poverty if a family stays on it forever. Their kids will go, and stay on it too.

2006-11-19 01:22:50 · answer #8 · answered by Villain 6 · 2 0

You have misrepresented the body of that opinion piece. His conclusion is that;

"The solutions to the major problems that confront many black people won't be found in the political arena" not that welfare has wrecked families.

How do you know that the social programs didn't prevent things from being even worse than they are now?

2006-11-19 01:11:18 · answer #9 · answered by Dastardly 6 · 3 3

It can be a trap, but something should be available for citizens going through a hardship. I believe it should eventually zero out, as the recipient achieves financial independence

2006-11-19 01:04:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

Just because there families with 4 or 5 generations on welfare? That is one of the liberals strongest bases!

2006-11-19 01:05:41 · answer #11 · answered by Bawney 6 · 3 3

fedest.com, questions and answers