Do you believe in helping the poor or enabling the lazy?

Question

Do you believe in...
* Temporary help while someone is down on their luck
* Job training and education "assistance"
* Requiring all able bodied people to work and contribute to society

OR do you believe in...
* Generational welfare (they need us - they can't do it alone)
* Rewarding bad behavior such as drug abuse with social security disability
* Requiring someone to work for their welfare check is akin to slavery (that was in a Milwaukee Journal article las year)

Answer 1

The best way to help the poor is enable them to care for themselves. Those who work in government programs have every incentive to keep those on welfare, etc because it is their job lost if there are no more needy.

I do not believe in helping those down on their luck. Each American should be required to carry unemployment insurance if they so desire it.

Job training is a private enterprise matter. We need to fix our pathetic government schools and we would not need as much job training.

All able bodied should work.

Liberals believe the average poor person is too stupid to care for themselves, thus why they need government.

Welfare has enslaved the black community. There was a great author named C Mason Weaver who wrote on this. He is a former black panther woken up to conservative.

Answer 2

Job training and education assistance would be great, as long there are jobs for people after graduation.

I worked as a teacher and administrator for a medical vocational school were we provided just that. Getting internships was easy, free help.

Finding jobs that didn't require 2 or more years experience in that field, or were in the area (20 mile radius), or that were more than just 20 hours a week was almost imposssible. Child care was also a factor. Why the 20 mile radius? Because anything more than that where I live puts you in the middle of nowhere.

You make it sound ever so easy. Choice A or B. But it's not that simple.

If you give the majority of people a REAL chance to get off welfare, they would. But part time on minimum wage, or even full time isn't going to cut it. I've seen cases were they get more from the system than from getting jobs. Reverse that, and you would be amazed how many people that would get off welfare.

Sure, they system still needs to be reformed, but instead of asking which do you believe in, ask what do we need to do to
help get them off of it. A real solution.

Answer 3

speaking as someone who has been there.
Education is the key and child care is so expensive.
most people who live in povety are the innocent children and eldery.
You break generational curses by education and counseling.
you teach the parent, budgeting, parenting, and help them get a education to take care of their selves and children,
They become self supporting , taxpaying citizens.
I was a single mom with 3 stair steps. I never dreamed I would be divorced and deserted. I was a very innocent kid.
I didnt intentional have three kids I was just fertile.
I went back to school worked three jobs got an eduction and now I give back.....
There were some wonderful people along the way that helped me to help myself.
Everyone able should work and contribute.
drug addicts and alcholics should not be supported by taxpayers.
They should be made to face the consequences of their choices. Sometimes you got to hit bottom to get help.
Seniors should not have to choose between meds,eating, or heat.
They should be respectfully well provided for.
I volenteer with a group that targets young parents especially young single moms.
It fullfills me. because i I have never forgotten where I came from and how desperately I fought to come out of povety.
education, budgeting,counseling, childcare and mentoring. are needfull tools.
You keep on giving the gift of love.
It is volenteer based, we have a lot of businessess and professionals teach and volenteer ,mentor and groom these kids. Help change their lives and choices and you influnce genrations for countless years for good.
I wished it started in middle and high school.
Better than sitting home and being lonely and feeling sorry for your self........

Answer 4

Welfare was reformed during the Clinton administration so that it IS temporary help while someone is down on their luck, now gives job training and education "assistance", and requires all able bodied people to work and contribute to society. During the Nixon/ Reagan era we had generational welfare and nothing was done about it so that people could look down on other people and demonize "liberals", drug addicts, and bums. People who still do this are living in the eighties. Drug addicts who want to get their lives together should have rehabilitation programs available to them. They should not be rewarded with benefits. There is a recertification process, which requires physicians to determine eligibility for benefits. Occasionally people find ways to abuse the system. This is minimal compared to the ways corrupt corporations find ways to abuse farm subsidies, tax loopholes, bailouts, and other forms of welfare for the rich.

Answer 5

I must point out that you have worded this question to show nothing but the positive points of one view and the negative points of another. So you are limiting the real response and discussion you could see for or against your view. Its not a bad thing but a matter of preference so don't take it as criticism just an observation.
I believe those who deserve help seek it. Job training is a good thing but it should include on the job labor so if a person is willing to work in order to better themselves then they should be given the opportunity. any one who enjoys full citizen ship in our society should be willing to support it but as to requiring them to work I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean every citizen should have a set requirement of national service? I would support that if their were no exceptions what so ever. If my kid has to work for the country for 2 years or some such then some senators kid or rich persons kid better have to do the same and better have the exact same chance to do the exact same job.

Answer 6

In theory, there are only 2 things I consider to be fair: assistance in some job training (later repayed by taxes) and some assistance geared towards helping kids of screwed up loser parents.

In practicality, however, there is more to welfare than just helping the poor. The little dirty secret is that you really do not want to have people who reached such a state of desperation that they truly have nothing to lose. You really do not want to force somebody to make a choice between comitting an armed robbery or his child starving to death. The experience shows that it simply makes a better economic sense to pay a little for some sort of a safety net as opposed to paying a lot more for security and police.

Answer 7

You are talking about people who are where they want to be. They are receiving more than they have earned and are capable of surviving in their circumstances with very little effort. The family income from welfare is sometimes more than the persons earning capability and they will refuse work so they don't mess up the benefits. They know the system better than the people running it and are training their children and grandchildren to live on it.

Answer 8

Proverbs 19:17

Answer 9

I believe that all social conditions like welfare and drug addiction have root causes such as poverty or abuse. And we will not beat these conditions until we (and our governments) deal with the root cause. Everything else is a band-aid solution.

It's really not that difficult to figure out.

Answer 10

I definetely totally choose the first.That's the social democracy I believe in though we might disagree how temporary and what excactly consitutes able bodied.
The first option treats the poor with respect and recognition bad luck can happen to all of us at some point and we're not better than them.It also shows they are still as far as we're concerened part of socieety.It's also the hopeful option.We believe you can better yourself and we will help you to get there.
The second opotiopn indeed enables lazy people.There might not be many or I may think there are far less than you think there are but no one can deny some people are just lazy.A system that makes it easy for them to abuse will always fail.The resentment of tax payers against recipients will increase and you get generational welfare wherre families are on social programs for generations.That's econimically not sutanable.
The second option also gives up on people,sends them the signal they don't matter anymore.That they failed and that that is that.I don't believe in giving people the message,give up,it's OK,we understand you're a loser.The second option might not be intended like that but that IS the message it sents to people on social programs in such a system.
I also believe that most people,I recognized there are lazy ones,but most would choose work over welfare in their heart.They might give other signals and seem lazy cos they think it's hopeless and they have no chance anyway.They don't want to be a loser so they fool themselves to believe they are OK with the welfare or other benefits they get.Much like that fox in the story who fools himself he doesn't really want those grapes cos he can't reach them,they fool themselves to believe they don't want a job and therefore sent the signal or signals of laziness cos in they are convinced there is no hope for them anyway. That',feeling like a hopless loser and outkast is psychologically harder to take for them than to believe they choose for welfare and don't want a job.