Should we make enrollement of welfare and other government assistance programs public information?

Question

should the government make a website so that it is open to the public which lists welfare recepiants in your area so people can see where their tax money is going?

insurance companies are different. welfare is funded by TAX which is paid by ME. plus i think it may help prevent abuse some, there seems to be a culture in america in which mooching off the system is cool

Answer 1

Y E S.

Answer 2

Transparency in government is a good thing to a degree; however, I do not support the idea of something akin to a list of just which people are receiving assistance. If there is abuse and the system is not catching it, then the system itself requires correction.

Furthermore, I question the motives of people who have proposed this idea. I fear that the objective of putting people onto publicly available lists is meant to cause shame and public ridicule, rather than accountability. In addition, a simple search by anyone could bring up this information in seconds, leading to future blackmail and humiliation potential.

Yes, your tax dollars fund welfare and assistance programs. I hope you don't object to the idea that we are all mutually responsible for one another -- because that is the basis on which we built America from its first days of community barn-raisings. We have seen time and again how these social programs are far less expensive than dealing with rampant property crimes, theft, illegal activity and vandalism that comes from desperate people who are left without a social safety net. They were put in place for a very good reason.

Answer 3

On the surface, this sounds like a good idea. But, in practice, it's a very bad precedent. First, we would have to spend tax dollars to impement and manage the system. Second, you are talking about installing a new system that could keep track of every welfare recipient and yet keep private information (like SS numbers) from getting released. Third, you didn't specify which welfare recipients would be on the system. It would overload. There are many types of welfare. For instance, when I was a young man, I got stranded in California with no money. I used public assistance to get a bus ticket home. This functions as a 'loan'. Before I apply for any more assistance, I have to pay this money back. Think of the backlog of people like me that would clog up the register. Fourth, and most importantly, I think we need to look at other government waste before welfare.

Pentagon waste (that's WASTE, not thier entire budget. Just 'lost' money'.) could pay for ALL our social services for 20 years.

My information is as follows: The budget for Health and Human Services was just over 70 billion dollars. Scroll to the bottom of the page for details. Add in another 130 billion to this from other agencies, like the Department of Labor, who provide unemployment payments, and other such programs.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/budget/hhs.pdf

Now, watch Donald Rumsfield say a couple of words on Pentagon spending.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRqeJcuK-A

Now, watch how much time Congress has invested to keep tabs on the missing funds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV301PZ-LhE&mode=related&search=

Yeah, I know it's alot of time to spend. But seriously, watch the videos. And then tell me if you think welfare should be our number one concern...

Answer 4

the reality of this situation is only funds. case in point a nurse getting to an unlawful guy or woman ought to truly ask for a social risk-free practices card or some state issued identity. yet they do no longer, because of the fact they take care of their funds in line with supplies. in the event that they recieved 20 million final 3 hundred and sixty 5 days serving illegals and that they commence no longer attending them this 3 hundred and sixty 5 days, their expenditures will drop significally, so they gets much less funds. a similar ensue with illegals getting GED's, Medicare, college Loans, etc.

Answer 5

No they should not. There are those that use the welfare system as it is intended, to give them the help they need to get back on their feet. Those people obviously have gone through enough humiliation in their lives and do not need any more. It is because of those types and those types alone I have to disagree with you.

Answer 6

Better yet, let's get a website started that lists who actually ate the $5.00 meatballs.

Report cites $5 meatballs, $4.55 sodas, as contributors to high conference costs

One Justice Department conference cost $395,000 in 2005, audit says

Inspector general's report questions Justice Department standards

Answer 7

No, you just shouldn't be able to benefit from government thievery unless you are medically unable to work or homeless and starving.

What productive society earns should not be confiscated to give the poor an incentive not to work

Answer 8

Why?

We don't have access to what kind of people visits Cheney nor do we know the budget of the CIA but yet there should be a database on welfare recipients?

The former drain our country so much more than the latter does.

Answer 9

I would like to know the exact dates that Rush Limbaugh was on the dole, but it really is none of my business.

Why are you guys so crabby about welfare when so much more of your tax money is going to fight this idiotic war? If you love your pocketbook so much, why not rail against that for a change?

Answer 10

Yes,i would like to know what businesses are getting corporate welfare,which uses far more of my tax dollars than social welfare.

Answer 11

What a wise and thoughtful and deeply felt Limbaugh bigoted and shallow, uninformed question. Yes, lets advertise mentally handicapped, mentally ill, people disabled from battle, and other "lazy" people, shame them, and let Limbaugh and Hannity lemmings feel good about themselves. Friend, fewer than 3 million americans now receive welfare payments. The bulk is to the elderly and infirmed. Would you like to starve mentally handicapped and elderly people?