wanted to know if any one had an answer to this particular question?
2006-11-27 11:04:57 · 6 answers · asked by nyah h 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Welfare is meant to help people that are on hard times. I believe in a compassionate state where no one should be hungry, be without shelter, security, education. I do not believe in handouts to the lazy as it is a tremendous drag on society and is a major reason for high taxes.
I therefore advocate a system where people that are unable to support themselves receive welfare in a different format.
1-safe and secure housing (very basic)
2-food vouchers (healthy food only)
3-free access to education and job training that is of a very high caliber
4-vouchers for consumer goods at thrift stores like goodwill and value village
5-health care
6-mass transportation
This spartan existence should not be preferable for people to live off so there is an incentive to get to work and improve their lives.
No one should get cheques to squander on cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, junk food and other wasteful things. Not everyone is able to care properly for their children so welfare should not be a pay raise for people. On this note, there should be excellent boarding houses (akin to those used by the wealthy) where children can be brought up in safe and healthy environments and afforded the best education. Transforming future lost generations into productive members of society.
2006-11-27 13:29:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
that depends on what you mean by welfare. Cooporate welfare accounts for the vast majority of tax dollars spent on welfare, but if that was included then you'd have assasinations and scandals coming forth. It'd be a lot more than the economy affected.
If the only welfare you cut out was foodstamps and AFDC(the welfare check) then the crime rate would rise drastically and over time people would either make it or not so the military wouldn't have the bordeline poverty class to recruit from anymore.
Wonder how many people employed by Social services would lose their jobs? And that's got to be one of the least qualified and most overpaid bunch of workers in society today.
2006-11-27 11:26:05 · answer #2 · answered by who 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the status quo was maintained, that is to say if Unions still existed and local minimum wages were maintained and taxes were cut proportionally, then the availability of extra monies would stimulate a boom in the economy. A boom would create more jobs except for those without skills or those without the desire to work. This would lead to horrible poverty, something that today does not exist in the United States. Eventually the burden of the increased crime rate would weigh against the economy and quality of life. To resolve this problem, taxes would have to be raised to spend on policing and incarceration. The raised taxes would subtract from the economy, slowing it down to it's original rate. Taxes would be paying for those without skills or those without the desire to work, but the cost in human Liberty would be enormous.
The balance is in the middle. Not benefits for everyone, but en ought to prevent despair.
2006-11-27 11:53:33 · answer #3 · answered by Brian L 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The last time there was a massive cut in welfare, it was in 1981 when Ronald Reagan took power, and the country was in recession for three years. AND it was only a 20% cut!
If ALL social support was cut, we we go into a massive recession, perhaps a mild depression. That's what would happen, because its happened before.
2006-11-27 11:08:46 · answer #4 · answered by Villain 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
People currently on welfare would have to get jobs.
Illegal immigrants would find it hard to find work and go home.
Welfare mothers wouldn't have so many kids if they had to feed them.
2006-11-30 17:29:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
alot of people would be hungry
2006-11-27 11:13:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋