If cutting funding for welfare would force recipients to succeed?

Question

Does it stand to reason that cutting funding to the military would cause them to succeed in Iraq? Just wondering how far that mentality reaches....

Answer 1

That's a good point, perhaps we should inform the President he owes us 6 years back salary for not accomplishing even ONE of his campaign promises, and he is to

And Republicans cannot be re-elected to any office higher than local dog-catcher until they pay us back the 3.3 TRILLION DOLLARS theyve pissed away in the last 7 years. It's obvious they can't be trusted with money, so they don't get access to it until they learn responsibility.

Answer 2

Actually, cutting the funding for the military operation in Iraq has a better chance of making them succeed than cutting the funding for welfare recipients would force them to succeed.

Answer 3

No. Because cutting welfare prevents people from depending on hand-outs. That way they are forced into the job market. If all the people on welfare would actually work, there would be no jobs for illegal immigrants to fill. The reason that they don't work is that the hand-outs they get are more than the money they would earn in entry level jobs. Remove the hand-outs and they would have work in order to survive.


On the other hand, cutting funding for defense will leave our soldiers without weapons and other supplies. I don't think that would be very helpful, do you?

Answer 4

Let's also cut corporate welfare if we are going to cut welfare to zero. Truth, the most a person can stay on welfare, five years, not generations like some insist on posting and in many states you get two years at a time and you have to jump through hoops for that twenty one dollars a week of food stamps. While the oil companies pay their CEO's millions and give even bigger bonuses, they also insist they need money from the government for exploration because if they had to pay it themselves they wouldn't be looking for new sources of oil. I say good, we need to get off of oil anyway, it's time to cut the addiction for cleaner sources of power.

Answer 5

Or how about eliminating corporate welfare and forcing Big Auto and Big Oil to be competitive?

Answer 6

the difference being the military works for a living, welfare needs reforming from being a hand out to a hand up, there are many public service jobs they could be doing, the military also retires people at some point in time, so shouldnt time limits be applied to welfare, and welfare is not dissability, many confuse that. You have a good arguement although we likely disagree ona solution, communication between those of opposit views ina civil manner is always helpful

Answer 7

Welfare is out of control completely curtailing it would help, if the damn democrats would see that it is bleeding to death. Cutting funding to the military would cause further death at a more rapid rate, now I know you don't want that.

Answer 8

TOTALLY different.

Generational welfare recipients NEED a push or something to get them off the public dole. Welfare is meant to be a TEMPORARY help measure. I support welfare totally...as TEMPORARY help.
Soldiers and our military WORK for this country and comparing the two is...well...wrong.

Answer 9

It's not that. It's that cutting funding for welfare and returning that money to the taxpayers enables the taxpayers to invest and spend it, thereby creating jobs.

Answer 10

Only if one were an idiot.... Just on simple basic reasoning... The welfare louts are paid to sit on their butt and do nothing.
The military are getting paid for work on a job that needs to be done... Even the simple minded should be able to see the difference there.