I don't mean disabled Americans who truly need it, but healthy people who collect welfare simply because they are too lazy to work or people who pop out kid after kid so that they DON'T have to work.
2007-05-18 03:41:58 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Steve C-
Do they allow you to smoke weed at the job? Because you have GOT to be high if you think that people still don't sponge off of welfare.
Nutcase.....
2007-05-18 03:52:40 · update #1
I think you are right on track. I would like to see all of the lazy sob's out there that I am paying for get out and do something for our money. I would think that mowing and landscaping for the older people that cannot afford to have it done, or taking care of the trash along the roads. Also for the ones that have a kid just so they can get more money should get cut off and have their kids taken from them to break the cycle.
I worked in a supermarket in high school and it would always piss me off to take food out for people that were driving new Cadillacs, Lincons and other high end cars, but cashed their welfare checks and payed for their steaks with food stamps. These were people that were in better health than most and better dressed than almost anyone I knew.
2007-05-18 04:06:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I honestly think that the majority of those getting state help are families, where they do work, but still need help.
I agree with a program that will get the parents into a job.
BUT. Welfare to work cost the taxpayer more money than allowing the mother to stay at home until her child is school age . . .
AND. In most cases the best place for a child is in the care of a parent.
Also, when talking about families, the program for "cold hard cash" means you have to put in community service time in order to qualify.
*************************
Steve: the only way to get benefits without hassle, is to lie. Those who tell the unfettered truth get reduced benefits, and or are cut off.
2007-05-18 23:41:20 · answer #2 · answered by Moneta_Lucina 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know about around the homes, but how about around the community? They could clean ditches, pick up trash on the side of the highway, plant and maintain ornamental plants. We could also get those in prison back out on chain gangs actually repaying a debt to society. They would be earning their keep then. And to Steve C, you know as well as I do that federal reforms leave loopholes you could fly a jumbo jet through. There are always those who will find a way to take advantage of the system, even if its an outright lie.
2007-05-18 10:51:18 · answer #3 · answered by Robert L 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
No. But here is my idea.
They need to report to work everyday in the city they are living. They will go around and pick up trash, beautify their neighborhood by planting trees, flowers, shoveling snow, etc. They do this for 4 hours a day in the morning. The eat lunch and then are put in job training or school programs so that they can make it on their own.
Their children will have daycare provided by the state in which they live in. These children will be taught how to read and write, not just play. So they are prepared for school when the time comes.
If the person does not show up, they don't get their money. They will also have to agree to temporarily have an IUD or someother birth control device place inside of their body until they can support themselves and their family. Oh and you have a 5 year lifetime limit.
But I guess I will be considered to be a cold hearted person for this answer.
2007-05-18 10:49:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
I don't know if they should necessarily be made to do housework in strangers' homes. I think that would be quite dangerous. For one thing, some welfare recipients have criminal backgrounds. Also, some working Americans are also criminals. However, I don't think it would be such a bad idea to make welfare recipients do odd jobs elsewhere. I think it would be nice if they could perhaps do community service work. Also, we should take into account the fact that there ARE welfare recipients who do work, but still have to draw benefits in order to adequately support themselves and their families.
2007-05-18 10:48:24 · answer #5 · answered by tangerine 7 · 8⤊ 1⤋
I think the able bodied welfare recipients should be doing the jobs illegals are doing. That would kill 2 birds with the same stone!
2007-05-18 10:50:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
That would be a good idea EXCEPT that I don't trust most of those low-lifes near my home. They'd probably steal something, or break something, or attack me or members of my family.
I have a better idea. Let's keep on with the current welfare system with only one, slight modification. Anybody who wants welfare must agree to undergo permanent, non-reversible sterilization. Once they get sterilized, they can be given food and shelter for the rest of their lives. If, however, anyone should try to obtain those things by criminal means, they should be shot dead upon discovery of the first offense.
2007-05-18 14:04:02 · answer #7 · answered by blaringhorn 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
We need a welfare to work program, but one that does not effect the needs of the family.
For example:
A single mother who has to go to work and leave her children in the hands of relatives or babysitters. This situation is not good for the family as a whole.
2007-05-18 11:11:04 · answer #8 · answered by Global warming ain't cool 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No that would be demeaning.
How about setting up a program like Truman did.
They built Hoover Dam this way.
If the are able bodied they have to work, doing whatever needs to be done.
But requiring them to do slave labor is wrong, especially for someone that is a "taxpayer"
When people bring up the issue of money and credit, I always say I bet Hitler had lots of cash and pretty good credit.
2007-05-18 10:49:09 · answer #9 · answered by Jack L. W. 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I have never met anyone on welfare who was lazy.
Are you trying to imply that James Braddock and Rush Limbaugh are lazy for being on the dole?
James Braddock took odd jobs at a loading dock and worked even though his hand was broken, so his kids could eat. He was not lazy at all. He back every penny the government gave him.
I think the majority are following the conservative concept to be stay at home parents.
What about lazy CEOs who don't do any hard work and collect millions?
What about George W. Bush who spends about 42% of his time on vacation and playing golf and living off our hard earned taxpayer dollars.
What about the workers on the highway with the signs "Men At Work" laying back and drinking pop on our $.
2007-05-18 10:49:23 · answer #10 · answered by Darth Vader 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋