would welfare decrease if every applicant had to go in front of a judge and prove their need for it?

Answer 1

It would be cheaper to simply give everyone welfare than to set up a special court to decide the issue.

Answer 2

Are you one of those who think "everyone" is on welfare? Do you know how many people are on welfare? Ever heard of the Welfare Reform Act of the 1990s and how it radically reduced welfare roles? Why is this an important matter for you?

Unemployment is below 5% in this country. Where are all these welfare recipients whose needs are so, so offensive to you?

Thank God for One4God - at least *someone* here knows the history, policy, and politics of welfare. To the guy (maybe a few) who say, "Yeah, and make it temporary!" - it already IS temporary.

To pick up on the questioner's logic, why stop with judges? Let's just put a big scarlet "W" on everyone who receives welfare.

What a shameful, selfish, petty, and pathetically uninformed lot you all are.

Answer 3

I work in a government agency that issues 'entitlements' to the eligible-needy.

Let me say this to the masses:

1) The vast majority of welfare recipients aren't African-American, they are Caucasion-Americans!

AND...

2) Illegal immigrants (Mexicans) are not blowing up the welfare rolls. Very few of them come in for welfare-handouts!

AND...

3) Many of those on the welfare rolls are the working-poor; that is...they have a job and despite their best effort(s) they cannot make ends meet!

AND

4) Only a small percentage of welfare-recipients are committing fraud!

AND

5) Baby...let me tell you, when welfare-fraud is discovered in the State of Alabama, those culprits are made to wish they had NEVER mouthed the words 'Food Stamps"! Believe that!

Answer 4

I agree with people that it would strain the judicial system too much. After working in social services for the state, I wish there was some way to keep them from spending money irresponsibly. It bothered me to see people with cell phones, tons of jewelry, designer clothing, fancy hair and nails...

Welfare should be temporary and help people get to the point that they can support themselves, not a long term subsidy to their need for material things.

Answer 5

Mendi8a - What are you saying, there is already welfare reform, and a lot of low income people do work, but, can barely survive because of the lack of affordable housing. You are probably known as the nosy, discriminating, high nosed neighbor in your community. Further more your question tends to make me believe that you are talking about yourself, what not enough financial assistance or food stamps, hunni.

Answer 6

Maybe, but it depends on the judges... the judges would probably just end up taking bribes to be honest.

Regardless of which way it went it would still not justify the idea of welfare in my opinion...

Answer 7

Yes but the lawyers would get richer and the courts are already tied up beyond belief.You can't spend thousands to save 500 bucks.

Answer 8

It would just clog up the courts even further.I always thought that someone had to prove their need at the welfare office anyway.

Answer 9

YES!!! Thats how they should do it. Their aren't hardly any youth in America that want to work and make it, they all want to set their lazy butt on the couch and live off the government. Although they just even up the debt of this country, the governmet wastes money, and so do the people.

Answer 10

yes, welfare would decrease, but crime would shoot through the roof!

then when all that money isn't creating cash flow, will your job suffer?