Should a time limit/max amount be set for welfare.Or should able individuals be allowed to take indefinitely?

Answer 1

It is criminal that someone can claim benefits (UK) from cradle to grave - that is not the intention of a welfare state - it's to help people in their hour of need. If you are able to work you should do so not lower your standard of living to be able to live of benefits. Something is wrong if you get so much state benefit it doesn't "pay" to work - unfortunately, that is true of the UK. Obviously, there are people with geniune disabilities that should receive the help they need.

Answer 2

The real question is what is good for society and what is the costs and benefits. In the 1930's able bodied people were given jobs in the WPA and CCC that built parks, repaired infrastructure, made movies and books about what was really happening in America, and provided life skills and lifelong careers for many great artists and writers.

The people in charge were sensitive to individual needs, not putting a writer to building walls or an illiterate to writing, though they provided education as well. Given a process and path nobody will stay on welfare if there is a way out.

What went wrong in the seventies was that anyone on welfare was "taxed" in excess of 100% on any money they made outside of welfare, and if they lost a job after getting off welfare the long hungry process of applying while getting nothing started all over again.

Meanwhile Corporate welfare wastes more taxpayers money than millions of much more needy Poor, and it never stops

Answer 3

There are limits on getting actual cash checks.. 2 years lifetime max.. For food stamps, there is no limit but u must work to keep them unless u are a full time student , disabled, retired or have a child under the age of 5. It's not fair to punish kids for their parents mistakes.. kids need to eat even if their parents are abusing the system.. Kids need healthcare... U can't cut off someone's food stamps who has 5 kids just because they won't use birth control.. it's not the kids fault.. They should go after the scumbag father and make him pay support.. Some people have to have this to survive.. I did not make enough when I was working full time to cover all my expenses.. My meds were $2000 a month.. I brought home $600 and paid rent, food, etc. out of that.. The medical care saved my and my son's life as did the food stamps...

I do have a problem with people abusing the system.. My sister in law was on welfare and they told her that once her youngest got 5 and went to school, she had to work... so she got pregnant again.. Those are people who abuse the system. (she doesn't need the system now..she just steals from everybody).

People don't seem to realize though that once u are on, they make it impossible for u to get off.. Example) last year i got a $12 raise.. Food stamps went down $10 and rent went up $10.. I am $8 in the hole.. Everyone is screaming welfare reform but they govt punishes u for trying to work and better yourself. There should be some kind of incentive like this: go to work and u keep all benefits for 6 months.. at same level... it would give the rec. time to get on their feet, save money, get healthcare, etc..

Answer 4

Now there is a subject that needs review! Yes, there should definitely be time limits, but unfortunately, the whole system is currently set up as a trap! If you try to earn your way up, you end up with less!
The System should be tiered to encourage people to supplement the allowance by rewarding progress!
If someone with no debilitating disabilities refuses to advance and continues to just be a negative drain, penalties should be implemented! Hate to sound cold, but I don't like having to support any children I did not get the pleasure of making and naming! And if said children think they have some right to start adding more, well I do not agree! There are several ways of arranging very effective birth controls that are not permanent! They should be forced on any welfare recipient! Catholic or not, the Church is not paying the expenses and they do not have to be lazy and suck up benefits! What in the world is anybody doing having children if they cannot support them in the first place?

That's all the lessons for today class!

Answer 5

No I think there should be a time limit, and I am on welfare.....

I don't like being in this situation, but I have two disabled children and am their carer, along with my husband. Five years ago we had good well paid jobs, owned our own house and had pension plans etc sorted. Today we rent a house, we don't work because we cannot secure childcare and we don't have a pension because we cannot afford one. On welfare our income is half what it used to be. We sold our house to pay off all those credit card and HP agreements.

In five years time, when my children reach 16, I plan to return to work and restore my financial status so that when I am dead, my children will have the security of a home and some money to live on. In this meantime, I have given them the stability and support they have needed to progress, and I would like to think they will be able to secure employment so they will not be dependent. However, am I glad we have been given this help in the meantime? You bet I am....we will have been on benefits 6 years when we return to work, and we will have all the help in the world, and whatever training we need. Would I have got this help if I had stayed in work? No, I would have been classed as coping and our family would have broken down, and the children been placed in care.

No one should take indefinitely, but taking when you need it is everybody's right, that is what we pay in for.

Answer 6

While it seems like a shock to many, those who know their AFL history should not be surprised. Why you ask?? because his father did it to both Hawthorn and Geelong on a number of occasions. Gary Sr. walked out on Hawthorn when he couldnt take the city life, and walked out on Geelong 2 or 3 times before finally retiring for good. it would seem that Nathan has followed in his fathers footsteps and walked away. He could learn to follow the example set by his brother. He has it worse - he carries his dad's name as well, and he overcame that and look at the player he has become. Nathan just needs to knuckle down and keep working on his game, instead of just giving up because it didnt all go his way.

Answer 7

I think timetables should be set, except for cases involving children or disabilities. If a person is receiving welfare to help raise kids, I think they should continue until the child is 18 if needed. No matter how bad that person is abusing the system, the children shouldn't suffer. So I guess the maximum is 18 years. Unless they have multiple kids. And obviously someone who has a permanent disability should receive help.

Answer 8

Depends on the situation. Welfare for the most part should be in the form of low interest rate loans to be repaid when the recipient gets on his/her feet again. Handouts simply enable a lazy individual to sponge off the american taxpayer.

Answer 9

yes there should be limits if not that gives people who draw these benefits reasons to sit on there butts and do nothing all day and live off of us hard working people and im not downing no one i have been there myself but to get a head in this life u need to have a job but u do have those people that if there not pushed to get a job they won't because there way is being paid.

Answer 10

You sound like a Thatcherite. A few people are abusing the system, so lets take the biggest sledgehammer we have and smash this nut out of existence. Make everyone suffer to stop a few spongers.