Who is in favor of welfare?

Question

Isn't it a waste of money? Aren't we encouraging and promoting poverty and irresponsibility?

Have you ever known anyone who was on welfare? I have. They actually thought it was their job to collect government payments. Couldn't wait to have more kids so their payments would increase. Didn't want legitimate employment because it would cramp their lifestyles.

Stop the madness!

Answer 1

Welfare should have a twelve-month maximum, after which you aren't eligible again for five more years. Payments for additional children should go down, not up. Increasing payments encourages the ghetto baby factories.

Answer 2

Welfare is not a waste of money.

Why is it that even though the US is by far the richest nation on earth, It's rates of crime, poverty, homelessness, uninsured, illiteracy, high school and college graduation, infant mortality, etc place it behind nearly all other major industrialized countries? Perhaps it has to do with the mean spirited neglect, and lasseiz-faire attitude the US government has toward social programs.

The idea that social spending in general will just encourage fraud, or a "welfare state" is a shortsighted one, and does not stand up to careful scrutiny. It is nonetheless popular among politicians because it means they can neglect their duty, which is to look after their constituents. It is true that social spending can encourage bureaucracy, but only if the money is not carefully budgeted or lacks oversight, as is often the case with military spending, or notably in the recent splurge in FEMA spending, which had little specific budgeting, or oversight. The fact that FEMA was unable to properly react to the catastrophe in Louisiana and Alabama in the first place, was not because we were spending *too much* on social programs, but *too little*

Poverty and unemployment are not a result of personal choice or from a failure of character, but rather are simply a fact of society. Poverty, homelessness and unemployment, are a result of a society's *refusal to to take care of it's less fortunate members*. The fact is, most people if given the choice, would choose to work for an honest living, otherwise society could not function at all, and money would become worthless.

Anyone who says that welfare is a waste of money is obviously not a student of history. Consider the first 150 years of our fair country, when government intervention was largely non existent. The rates of poverty, unemployment, homelessness, ineducation, illiteracy, child mortality, disease, and the average lifespan in general was staggeringly bad. The huge economic boom at the beginning of the twentieth century, that propelled the US into its current position as the world superpower, was probably due in part to the simple fact that factories finally decided to start treating their workers better.

~Donkey Hotei

Answer 3

I'm a firm believer in welfare, but also rehabilitation projects. Welfare pulls people out of poverty and into jobs, it helps the economy, it puts food on the table, it creates a brighter future for everybody.

Human beings are the most important asset to the economy, why throw them away? Taking away welfare would encourage the poor to turn to crime, drugs and guns. Businesses would be robbed and homes would be burgalized. Welfare saves the state money in the long run.

Not every person who is successful at their job will be a successful earner. Not every one is born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Sorry that wasn't what you wanted to hear, but it's te truth.

Answer 4

The "no welfare" solution would basically say "If you can't feed yourself, then die". After a while, no more welfare cases.
Of course some truly needy souls will die but the majority will get their act together and become productive citizens.
This was actually the case before welfare was started.
I'm sure that in our hearts none of us would tolerate a situation such as this.
So welfare must continue but efforts can be made to weed out the undeserving.

Answer 5

It's an interesting issue but I think you ask the wrong question. We live in a capitalist, hierarchical society. There are always people at the bottom (by virtue of it being a hierarchy), and you can argue that society (in terms of educational systems etc) is subtley configured to ensure a class of very poor people to act as a source of low wage labor, fodder for the armed forces, scapegoat for all societies ills and prejuidices etc. So the question becomes - why do we live in a society that doesn't adequately employ all it's members?

At an individual level, though, everyone is responsible for themselves, and there should be incentives to get people off welfare and into reasonably paid work.

Have you asked yourselves what the alternative to welfare is. Disregard the people you know who claim welfare: do you want people to starve to death in the richest country in the world? Unemployment is cyclical thing caused by industry change, regional changes, global market forces etc. Do you think that people who are unemployed and at the bottom of the pile deserve it, or chose it?

Answer 6

Perhaps someday you will lose your job because of a serious illness. You will have no insurance and your medical costs will be so high you will be unable to pay for them. You will lose everything. Your only hope is welfare payments. I hope this never happens to you but it the sad situation of many many people. Husbands leave wives with small children to support. People go bankrupt. Women who decide not to have an abortion have to support a child. Elderly people who have only social security cannot afford high heating costs or the cost of food and medicine.
You need to think about these problems.

Answer 7

I believe that it always in society's best interest to lend a helping hand. There will always be a "free-rider" problem with economics, however, there are plenty of people who have nothing--including food and medical care. I'd rather error on the side of helping the hungry than worrying too much about the few that take advantage of the system. No one in the US has to suffer when there is so much consumerism waste.

Answer 8

I agree, welfare encourages irresponsibilty and poverty. It is a system designed to keep the poor down and it's a waste of my heard earned tax dollars.

I think they should cut welfare programs that encourage long term use. I think welfare should be used for people in transition who actually have a plan in place to get back on their feet that may require an extra push to make it happen.

There are far too many people that get on welfare and that's it.. they die on welfare too.

Answer 9

Yes, to help out someone who needs a little assistance over a short period of time to get back on their feet. Do I support it as a way of life that lasts for generation after generation? Hell, no! I've known many who have been on welfare and I understand completely.

Answer 10

Welfare is a great program becasue there are many families that do need it and the key word is "deserve it". The problem is that it is being sucked dry by the illegals and people who are not worthy of receiving it, an dit should be monitored better and the persons asking for help should be screened better. I am all for it for legal citizens in need of it, but we need to locate all the freeloaders and remove them from the system.