Why do conservatives object to giving welfare to Americans but can't give enough of it to Iraqis?

Answer 1

Brilliant question !! Especially considering the relative amount of dollars... For the costs of the Iraq war so far, I'm guessing we could have alleviated poverty for a huge number of people.

Answer 2

We conservatives take issue with welfare because the majority of the recipients are lazy, and taking advantage of the hard-working, tax-paying American. Worse yet, the system itself has no real checks and balances in place so that the government could stop giving my money away to a bunch of lazy-asses with nothing to show for it in return (Liberal government, it's a bad investment).

Bankrolling Iraq is an entirely different issue, like someone earlier had said, "apples & oranges." We are funding a baby-democracy, the first of its kind, one right in the center of the middle east.

You know, I can't help but wonder where the concept of America would be had it not been for the French supporting us during the Revolutionary War. Would the American rebellion been crushed, and would we still been considered English colonies? Who knows.

My point is that someone has to play a supporting role in the beginning of a democratic government, and that job has fallen on us when it comes to Iraq. Change is a hard thing to get used to, and everyone in that region is fighting to maintain the 6th century status quo. We are the only nation that's truly supporting that change (by putting our money where our mouth is), and that's character.

Answer 3

Do you know the difference between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives? I'm a SOCIAL conservative, but fiscally, I'm slightly left of center.
Not all conservatives object to welfare. I don't, so long as those who are able to work are looking for a job, and attempting to better themselves.
Anyway, helping Iraq will pay off, if all goes better than it HAS been going. I'm being cautiously optimistic here. It'll certainly pay off better than giving hand-outs to people who aren't trying to better themselves.
Although, in Iraq it's getting to the point where if their citizens don't start figuring out how to defend themselves...I might have to finally take a stand on the war. This is getting ridiculous. I'm not hearing enough about Iraqis standing up for themselves.

Answer 4

Welfare should carry a 5-year maximum, and given ONLY if the recipient is in a job training or job placement program that will find them full time work. I do NOT support giving bigger checks to single women having more kids to get bigger checks! As for the Iraqis.......I honestly couldn't care any less what they do with themselves at this point. The United States has given them the chance to create a free society and a democratic government, and they seem content to wage civil war and blow each other up.

Answer 5

Hey Dog Lover...you said it all man. I mean good grief what a totally air headed question to ask. It isn't worth of a response whatever. But I'll give it a shot.
One piece of advice. Look at the total amount of money spent each year on the following programs: Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security and other fixed social subsidy programs in the US Budget. Add them up. Then add up what has been spent PER YEAR on the war against islamic fascism. Care to guess what "we the people" are spending the most on? If you said social programs right here at home you would be right.

Answer 6

because of the fact the conflict on Poverty (mid-Sixties), the U.S. has spent over 6 Trillion taxpayer money scuffling with poverty interior the U.S. This has failed as there nonetheless are poeple living on the poverty point. Take New Orleans: the poverty and welfare state that this is and grew to become into previous to Katrina: With all the Federal $ going there, it would have been utopia -- no unemployment, prosperious, no cime, and so on. the money going to Iraq is probable greater ideal spent in comparison to all the welfare (in spite of good intentions) spent over the final 30 years.

Answer 7

Well, consider that giving foreign aid is a part of foreign policy which is a legitimate Constitutional duty of government.

And consider that nowhere in the Constitution is there any authorization for the government to take money from my pocket to give to others for food, shelter or medicine.

Since you liberals are such big fans of Constitutionality (LOL!), or at least whenever your political masters rattle your cages and tell you to piss&moan about it, you should obviously then be aware that Federal welfare is inherently unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. Please tell me you can grasp this concept intellectually.

Answer 8

Hey, you can't paint everyone with the same brush...I am what some would label as a "liberal" (whatever that means) and I object to giving out welfare......

Answer 9

At least the money spent in Iraq serves us all, in terms of safety and security, while welfare only benefits the individual recipient, and is a forced wealth redistribution program.

Answer 10

What are they giving to the iraqis? They are spending aid money on US businesses to provide aid to Iraqi people who the gov. made dependent upon themselves. If we gave every iraqi man woman and child about 10000 bucks (the amount we spent on the war divided by the population) I think we would have a lot less people dieing ...

Answer 11

The Iraqi's need our help more. They have been oppressed for centuries, and need to have understanding of what a free society means. It is America's job to help free other countries from tyranny, and help them secure democracy, and/or a Republic, because we are free. We are a loving, generous people, and we have a duty to the rest of the world to help them become free, since most of them want what we have.