Also - do not let welfare moms have more than 1 child. Do not let them keep having them without fathers present so they do not have to work. This pretty much describes the city of Milwaukee.
If all the able-bodied people on welfare worked and contributed to society, wouldn't this be a better place?
2007-10-25 10:02:41 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If you would only LOOK liberals - there is so much abuse going on around you. Look at the Katrina "victims" who will not get jobs even NOW! When we were down in New Orleans last Jan. we met a city worker on our cruise who told us over 50% of the city's population did not and would not WORK!
2007-10-25 10:13:02 · update #1
No because you are making a erroneous assumption that by taking welfare away from these people they would find good jobs and start working. A majority would not. Studies have already shown this. The number of people on the street committing crime, prostituting, selling drugs, etc. would go up, but the govt does not collect tax for these ventures.
2007-10-25 20:27:36 · answer #1 · answered by Gabriel Archangel 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't think that there are that many able-bodies people on welfare any more. Didn't Clinton and Congress pass welfare reform in the 1990's? Forget about limiting the number of kids that the welfare mothers can have. You will be called a Nazi or racist, or some other name.
Yes, our society would be a better place if the people on welfare had to contribute, but let's not spend a lot of money putting the in work programs. Welfare is just not one of the top issues. Stopping the illegal alien invasion from Mexico, reducing the national debt, reducing our dependency on foreign energy, and winning the war against Islamic-fascists are much more important issues
2007-10-25 17:15:22 · answer #2 · answered by Shane 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Another Republican myth. But sure lets just start euthanizing the surplus kids of welfare mothers - especially if they are black or brown skinned. Why not use some of those empty FEMA camps to house them and make them form up in work batallions with quotas. A few guard dogs and some electric fencing strung up betweeen guard towers...and problem solved ! What a cute idea.
Can we have these " welfare moms be compelled to wear some kind of yellow emblem on their clothes as well.
I am thinking the Homeland Security Kamp slogan could be Arbiet Macht Frei while we are at it.
2007-10-25 17:22:43 · answer #3 · answered by planksheer 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This should be very interesting to you. You need a little educating about the status of welfare since 1996. If you'll notice, it is no longer a political issue. No matter what, after 5 years, no more welfare. For those who are able-bodied, 2 years and there better be a job or no more welfare. Its called The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and was authored by Newt Gingrich, signed into law by Bill Clinton.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060911/truthdig
Also, deadbeat dads are now sent to jail if they do not pay support and they are hunted down.
2007-10-25 17:27:48 · answer #4 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
If George Bush had not invaded Iraq, and wasted nearly a trillion dollars, then our taxes would not be going up.
Taxes have to be raised to pay for the 7 years of Bush mismanagement.
He wasted the huge surplus left by President Clinton.
2007-10-25 19:16:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
When I was younger I used to think that, but at some point I saw the pie chart of 'where are taxes dollars are spent' and I was shocked at how so little of our tax dollars are spent on the poor and unemployed. I realized that I was wrong, that I had been misled, and I stopped blaming welfare moms for our economic problems.
2007-10-25 17:17:14 · answer #6 · answered by CaesarLives 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Seeing as though President Bush has sent so many American jobs over seas and the population keeps increasing due to illegal aliens, I would say employing all those people would be easier said then done. If they all had jobs others like yourself or your children coming out of college wouldnt have jobs. I dont support welfare but I am also realistic in my thinking.
2007-10-25 17:07:51 · answer #7 · answered by MJMGrand 6 · 8⤊ 3⤋
Welfare to work huh
sounds like a good idea
Clinton was the first President in decades to implement such a program
unfortunately the program ended in 2004 and
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION has done NOTHING in regards to any type of reform
Maybe that is so the neo-cons will have something to whine about
2007-10-25 17:09:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 4⤋
Welfare makes up a pretty small percentage of expenditure on state and federal level. Besides we would pay for it in other ways, such as more money being spent on the prison systems.
That also begs the question of a mother staying home to take care of a child being an able bodied person who is not contributing to society through economic means. Is that not a valuable contribution to society thus making the world a better place?
2007-10-25 17:06:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 7⤋
Believe it or not I'm as against badly run welfare as you guys and was happy when Clinton reformed it.
But US government forcibly sterilizing or forcing contraception onto people for socio-economic reasons?? You don't see something even vaguely wrong with this?
2007-10-25 17:11:05 · answer #10 · answered by captain_koyk 5 · 7⤊ 3⤋