For those that support welfare for the "good of society", do they also support personally responsibility?

Question

I hear many people say that we need welfare systems and socialistic ideas (Universal Healthcare) for the good of society....

Do those same people support personal responsibility as well? Do they support the idea that people are responsible for their actions?

Answer 1

Yes, the Republican party does support personal responsibility, while acknowledging that some people need help. The Workfare programs that got started years ago, have cleaned off the welfare rolls of the lazy. There's nothing wrong with having Welfare, it's when it's doled out with no monitoring that it gets abused. ALL government programs need monitors, to keep them lean and clean. I wish there was an independent monitoring program that could follow people around, and blacklist them if they're abusing a program, from government employees to private citizens. Might be able to really help the true needy then.
- The Gremlin Guy -

Answer 2

I think so... I mean... welfare is in reality nothing more than a government charity program...

I mean... by the pure idea of "personal responsibility" no one should ever help anyone else out ever for any reason... and that's a fundamentally anti-Christian, anti-human and anti-compassion...

helping others is good... and you look at the countries with no "welfare programs"... and it's no where anyone with a brain would want to live... and I don't think that's an accident...

granted, some can use welfare as a crutch... and we need to work on those situations (and it's better than it used to be, if you're familiar)

but merely doing away with it in the name of "personal responsibilty" doesn't help those countries that don't have it...

I MEAN... if you look at it... there are many who support welfare in the U.S.... yet a small percentage of the population is on the program... so they must believe to some degree in personal responsibilty...

Answer 3

This is a question that is far too complicated and serious to answer here.

Because our laws protect the rich and allow the rich to become mega-rich, the laws also need to provide for those who are now unable to survive without committing crimes against society. Welfare just keeps the poor away from your front door. Of course welfare recipients spend the money which get it back into circulation while the rich tend to invest in overseas companies that support slave labor. I'm poor because my great great grandpa didn't steal land from the Indians or have land deeded to him by some foreign monarch. There are very few self made "men" around. I would gladly do away with any form of public assistance if we could also get rid of the laws that protect the wealthy. What do you say to that?

Like I said, a very complicated issue.

Answer 4

I support both. People in need should get help from society, whether it's medical, educational, or financial help. Anything else is inhumane treatment of your fellow human being. People who have done well should be willing to help those that need it. The system should encourage and reward people who take risks with their assets and succeed. In the long run in history, individuals who do this have far exceeded the results shown by governments, planned economies, etc.

However, people who are able to work for themselves and care for themselves, but don't, should be left hungry on the side of the road. And successful people who get that way by mistreating employees, cheating partners, customers, etc. should be heavily fined and punished.

Answer 5

I have long felt that the welfare society encourages some people to abdicate responsibility. It has, in my opinion, promoted a culture of laziness.
However, I too have been on the receiving end of circumstances beyond my control and have needed help.
The welfare state should be a safety net, not a hammock.

Answer 6

there is Lyle's assertion: of course i could wish that a house invader, Stalin or Hitler could be unarmed. yet in relation to Stalin or Hitler, until i desired to take a number of them with me, what i could want could be a white flag, not a gun. they're why my tax money help a protection rigidity, a military and an air rigidity. yet in relation to the domicile invader, if I lived in a state the place all of us owns a gun, that could comprise the domicile invader, And there could be a notably sturdy probability that the domicile invader could have the factor of marvel. He does not could attain below his pillow. yet when I lived someplace the place gun possession is actual regulated, that's actual that such rules won't stop Hitler or Stalin or perhaps the Mafia, the Hell's Angels or Al Qaeda from getting weapons. yet until one in all those agencies had a settlement on me, opportunities are the domicile invader could be some strung out junkie, particularly than a member of such agencies. to wish that the domicile invader became unarmed could actual be sensible.

Answer 7

Absolutely. I'm kind of a both-winger that way.

We are all responsible for our own actions, and we all eventually have to deal with seemingly random occurrences that surpass our personal ability to deal. Safety-net type programs are society's way of preserving itself from the acts of desperate people who are in trouble and can't find any help.

As for me, I've never been happier than when I finally got my sh*t back together enough to no longer qualify for food stamps, but I was very glad for them when my family was short of other options.

Answer 8

There is no personal responsibility in America. Its always someone else's fault.

I spill coffee on myself, I'll sue.

My kid shoots some people then himself, its the fault of tv and music

I drive drunk and kill someone, its the people who gave me the booze who are responsible.

I'm a big fat slob, its not my fault, its the fast food industry.

There is more litigation in America than in any other country in the world, its not even close.

Plus, don't you think people are responsible for the consequences for other people of their actions. Or can I poison a town's drinking water because its good for my profits.

Wake up America, you've been deluding yourselves for too long.

Answer 9

I can't answer for all of them, but I believe both in personal responsibility and support by society for those in need.

Answer 10

Generally, not very often.

Usually, people who advocate for personal responsibility are not in favor of the govt taking responsibility -- especially not mandating such behavior.

The very idea of personal responsibility is that you choose what to do, and you choose what happens to you -- and you live with the consequences of those choices.

Social programs encourage people to abdicate personal responsibility, because whatever happens, the govt will pick up the slack. I think that's bad for society, and bad for the individual.