I think there should be a time limit for collecting welfare. And I definately believe in a mandatory, weekly drug test for collecting welfare benefits. hey, I had to take a drug test so I could get a job to pay someone's welfare, so why shouldn't they have to prove they are drug-free before they cash in on my money? I mean, if you can afford drugs without a job, then you don't need welfare, do you?
2007-03-27 06:51:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by georgiagrits1 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
People love to find a way to blame the poor because its tax time and they have to pay their taxes. Welfare accounts for a mere 5% of the federal spending. You know where the rest goes? Funding wars created under false pretenses, federal pork spending for a senators "tea cup" museum and other such nonsense.
Stop blaming the poor for your problems. Most people, the vast overwhelming majority of people on welfare work for a living and they are still poor. The minimum wage keeps one at the poverty level, thats why its called minimum wage. Making $14,000 a year for a family of 4 means each family member only $4,000 dollars a year. Many of them work 2 jobs and whatever odd job they have.
Besides that, check out "Workfare" created by Bill Clinton in the 90s. Working is one for the requirements and one cannot stay on it forever. There are limits. But noone is sitting up getting rich off welflare, they are getting assisted with their daily needs that the $14,000 a year that they make in salary doesn't cover.
You should be more concerened about how many tax breaks and benefits and free money the government gives corporations, which is why some company executives walk away with $600 million dollar Christmas bonouses.
2007-03-27 07:37:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by JAdorE 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
I believe that welfare should be temporary, as it was first meant to be. If you have to get on public assistance, then there should be a definite time limit for that assistance. If you can only find a part time job or a minimum wage job, then maybe welfare could subsidize you until you make enough for rent, food, etc. If you owe child support, yes you should be made to work to support your kids. But moving rocks probably isn't the best thing. There is always some kind of work to be done somewhere.
2007-03-27 07:01:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Princess of the Realm 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
It depends on the situation. Some people on welfare need the help like the elderly and those who have been laid off. However, their are people who dont do a damn thing but sit on their butts all day, when they could be out working, like the rest of us. The sad part is that their isnt enough money to go around as it is and people who really do need the help cant get it because the moochers wont get off their bottoms and get a job. I think after a certain amount of time the government needs to cut them off but then poverty would go up and we dont need that.
2007-03-27 07:16:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by MJMGrand 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't know about putting someone to a frivolous job, but the government does need to do something if they are going to perpetuate the welfare system. I agree that people shouldn't receive welfare until they have worked. Give them government jobs, put them on the side of the road picking up trash, make them copy papers, I don't know but we CAN NOT allow people to think that welfare is a way of life.
2007-03-27 07:00:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by chavito 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe that if you drive a Cadillac Escalade or similiar, you should be denied benefits...and if you don't work, or if you don't help out i.e. at a homeless shelter, council on aging, picking up the litter on the highways, streets, etc... your benefit amount should be equivalent... If you have fathered more than 3 kids by different women, your jewels should be "dejeweled" and likewise for the women... But that's just me... :)
2007-03-27 06:55:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by momof3 5
·
1⤊
0⤋