2007-01-28 06:04:12 · 9 answers · asked by BKelly237 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I'm in favor of greater access to training programs (especially for things we really need, like nurses) and high school equivalency for welfare recipients: things that will let a person get a good job. But in terms of cash, I'd say let the amounts decrease gradually after one year on welfare. Lots of people run into problems when a job is lost, or a spouse leaves (or stops paying child support) or when a hurricane or other natural disaster strikes and I am all for providing a way for people to get back on their feet, especially when it can be done through foodstamps, rent vouchers, etc. A lot of hard-working people have had to take welfare in the short-term. But in the long term, it's best for everyone concerned if people can get off welfare and earn their own way.
2007-01-28 06:27:24 · answer #1 · answered by Yogini108 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Welfare is provided as temporary help. Since the early 90s, without any extenuating circumstances, a person is cut off welfare after not getting a job within two years.
2007-01-30 14:33:42 · answer #2 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. We should actually limit the amount of time someone can stay on welfare and install penalties for doing things that will cost us (the taxpayers) more money such as having additional children while receiving welfare or foodstamps. I'm sorry, you may not want to flip burgers, but it is a job and will be bringing in some money. If you don't qualify for something else, then do something about it like get in school. Don't complain to me about tuition. I had to take out over $100,000 in student loans to make my dream come true. I am now repaying that loan.
2007-01-28 14:47:46 · answer #3 · answered by rwill54287 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I have mixed feelings about that. In a way I say yes. In a way I say no.
No, because that will encourage the welfare recipients not to get a job. Yes, because it helps.
Definitely mixed on the subject
2007-01-28 14:09:08 · answer #4 · answered by Sarah* 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Just the opposite, the longer you are on it, the less you get paid.
I would prefer no welfare at all.
2007-01-28 14:09:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
absolutely not. that would only encourage EVERYONE to get on welfare.
welfare recipients should be encouraged to GET OFF welfare by supporting THEMSELVES.
2007-01-28 14:17:06 · answer #6 · answered by political junkie 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No it should actually have a graduated withdrawal of funds and benefits the longer you are on it.
2007-01-28 14:10:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
No, it should be completely eliminated, including corporate welfare.
2007-01-28 14:09:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
No, it's the more kids you can have, you get paid more.
2007-01-28 14:54:03 · answer #9 · answered by Nicki 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋