Should we abolish the welfare system?

Question

Do you think the welfare system is actually productive. Or does it simply fuel laziness among ghetto/hickish people? I feel like welfare COULD be a helpful tool, but I know too many people who abuse the system and go buy bling bling and diamond studded grills for their mouths while sitting on their lazy @$$es instead of getting a job and trying to make it in this world. Perhaps if we abolished the welfare system, these lazy folks would be forced to find work...anyone agree?

Answer 1

I believe welfare should only be available in unpreventable circumstances that deter one from being able to support him or herself.

Unplanned children are NOT an unpreventable circumstance, and should not merit any handouts. If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. I could even make an acception if you can prove you've used protecton, but if you're simply playing Russian Roulette with your body, that's not my problems, it's yours. I shouldn't have to fund someone else's mistakes.

We're getting to the point where I don't consider divorce a valid reason to collect welfare either. Perhaps in the past, but these days it's asinine. We all know roughly half of all US marriages fail, so why aren't more people preparing themselves? If your spouse walks out leaving you with a bunch of kids and a stack of bills, it's your responsibility to be prepared. No one's picturing divorce attorneys when s/he walks down the aisle, but, let's face it--there's a good chance of it happening, so you'd best have a back up plan.

In the event of the death of a spouse, I could see a little help for about a year or so. Again, you should be prepared to support yourself financially, but I could understand temporary help for a grieving period you couldn't plan for.

I have no problem with welfare for as long as necessary in some situations. I support helping mentally retarded people who are unable to achieve a livable wage, or people who are struck with debilitating or terminal illness, and left unable to work as much, if at all. If an accident renders someone unable to perform the job they held prior to the injury, I'm fine with helping him or her out until they learn a new skill. Again, I only support this in unpreventable circumstances--some illnesses and accidents are preventable. As for the circumstances you're born into, yes, I realize there are children that are severly abused, and don't develop into properly functioning adults. I have no problem with a little leeway there, however, if your biggest gripe is that you were poor or grew up in the bad part of town, you're still responsible for who you become.

I guess my view on the matter all revolves around the difference between playing the hand you're dealt to the best of your ability, and just plain playing poorly. We need to put more effort into the system, NOT more money, and discern who is truly in need of help, and who simply wants a paycheck for irresponsibility and/or poor planning.

Answer 2

It should not be abolished, but it should be more closely regulated. Unless you are above 65 or are disabled, there should be a limit to the welfare you recieve. I would say 6 months is a good amout of time for you to find a job.
There also needs to be internal regulation of the welfare system including screened calls, because i remember a few years back there was a news special on how employees were helping recipients recieve more money.
Oh, and I don't think the amount of welfare recieved should increase with the number of children you have. Any family with over 2 kids should only recieve a limited amount. Lets face it, if you don't have enough money to put food on the table, you should be responsible enough to not bring more mouths to feed into the world.
I'm frustrated that my tax dollars go to a system that I will pobably never use, but there isn't much I can do about that. I hope I never need to be on welfare, but if I do I know that I will not be abusing the system.
Have a happy Thanksgiving

Answer 3

DEADBEATS? Who are you calling deadbeats? No, the only deadbeats are the deadbeat FATHERS that walked out on their children, NOT the mothers on welfare. Just because a parent goes through a little struggle and needs welfare, does not mean they cant take care of their children or that they are lazy. Everyone has rough patches especially if you are a single mom. Besides welfare requires 32 hours a week of work or school. And who says they dont spend it wisely. They give you a few hundred dollars a month which is probably just enough to rent a room from someone and buy diapers.

Answer 4

You know, you may think you got by with the 'ghetto/hickish' reference, but we ALL know exactly who you were talking about in the rest of your example. Don't insult our intelligence -- come off the bullshit and ask your question; just say you think Black people spend money unwisely and need to get jobs. Stand up as a man or woman for the tongue-lashing you so richly deserve.

Now to your question. In a nation so rich as the U.S. where the wealth is so unevenly distributed, state-sanctioned and administrated welfare programs are still necessary. It would be nice if everyone felt, like I do, that we are all somewhat responsible for one another's well-being, but I know that's asking a bit much. However, the welfare programs that exist in the States are well overdue for serious reform, and I personally would prefer not to have to look to the federal government for the reform OR the programs themselves.

Answer 5

Well I think there is corruption/abuse inherent in any institution, so in that sense there will always be freeloaders. Keep in mind that the modern welfare state came into being during the great depression, and America existed for 200 years beforehand. People in need would depend on church, family, and altruism. As far as the question goes, I think the welfare system should be voluntary. If you want to give your money to those deemed by the government to be unable to support themselves then fine give to it. If you would rather give your money to a respectable charity, church, or just spend it on yourself, that should also be your option.

Answer 6

I see the need for welfare BUT it needs to be tightened. Lets face it, crap happens and a widow who stayed at home with the kids while her husband misspent the money needs help getting back on her feet BUT not indefinitely.

I believe in housing assistance and food stamps MORE than weekly cheques BUT I agree with those who say the cheques shouldn't stop once you get a job but 6 weeks later to help you get on your feet.

BTW, there is no welfare in the Bahamas, we have a lot of women working on their backs to make ends meet and some families have taken to selling their kids or prostituting them out. NO HELP is no help.

There should definitely be a price for Welfare, like you HAVE to participate in the programs AND get on birth control.

Answer 7

I believe it should be a system used only for people over the age of 65 yrs old.
Not fully abolished, but there should be age requirements..

People under the age of 65, unless mentally retarded, etc. can and should be forced to care for themselves..
You get the idea of what Im trying to get across..

Answer 8

We should abolish it for the ones who are just too lazy to work.
The way the system is set up it encourages people not to work in some cases.

Answer 9

I think anyone who is capable of working should have to work for a welfare check.

Answer 10

you obviously don't know much about the welfare system, all blacks aren't on welfare.