I believe it does. It enables lazy people to stay lazy. During two times in my life I have lived in poor neighborhoods. I have seen it first hand. People who are able to work but don't want to do anything that might "interfere" with their benefits.
2007-11-23 14:13:28 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
vegan you need meat, fast.
2007-11-23 14:25:42 · update #1
It's an absolute trap. It enables the lazy to stay lazy. The ones who want to work must fear losing everything. It also teaches the next generation to accept living in substandard conditions to be ok.
2007-11-23 14:26:58 · answer #1 · answered by DesignDiva1 5 · 4⤊ 5⤋
Look, why do you overgeneralize about something you have no clue about? People who live in cities pay enormous amounts of rent and welfare doesn't cover it. Most of the people who get welfare today live in rural areas.Since Clinton signed the welfare reform laws in the 1990's people cannot stay on welfare for more than 2 years. So, your point is entirely misinformed. BTW, the number of people who actually rip off the system is so miniscule compared to those military contracts and missing 9 billion dollars from Iraq that it's pretty much a ridiculous point. Corporate welfare sucks up far more of your taxes for their monetary gains on top of huge profits they are raking in. So, if you're going to cry wolf about welfare and the entities who are sucking the system by being dependent on it, I suggest you start crying about the real culprits.
2007-11-23 14:41:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
Valid point...
The hard things with welfare programs is saying 'no'. It is an emotional weakness we all have a human beings. I'm sure there are those who are trying to work hard...but we shouldn't not be afraid to play rough to citizens who do not attempt to get off their @$$es.
Xialou,
You say the system has flaws. This is exactly why we dread national healthcare system. Because people will abuse the system. They will get lazy like stated above and not try to take care of themselves...because in the back of their mind...they have the government to fall back on.
2007-11-23 14:37:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
No....welfare is NOT for working parents who do not make enough money. If the children involved are not yet school age, the parent does not have to be working. You can be on welfare without working for two years, after that you have to get a job and then they will give you money if you do not make enough. And yes, there are MANY people who get welfare who have no interest in working as long as they get "free" money. It's a scam.
2007-11-23 14:41:06 · answer #4 · answered by Cinner 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
The economic system keeps people poor. Welfare offsets that poverty.
It's simple economic logic.
If wages don't offset the disutility of labor for any given worker, then the employer can simply raise wages to get them to work. It's not difficult. Higher wages would mean lower social welfare expense. But higher wages would mean lower profits in the short term (but in the longer term lead to higher profits, due to higher incomes leading to higher consumption. As Henry Ford wisely observed, he can't make cars unless his employees can afford to buy them). The selfishness and short-sightedness of many employers is causing the problem.
2007-11-23 14:21:45 · answer #5 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
to jack,
welfare is only for people with kids who are working and don't make enough, and that only for two years of your life total... why is it that no one seems to realize what welfare is now?
Here someone show me where on this list it says that you can have benefits forever...
http://www.financeproject.org/irc/win/eligibility.asp
that's right it doesn't, and in the vast majority of states they slashed the 5 years down to 2, like here in Georgia, and those benefits BTW are 205$ per month for a family of 3 in Georgia... What is a person even supposed to do with that? Let alone 3 people... hmm maybe they're supposed to buy blankets so that their cardboard box can be softer to sleep in in the alley...
2007-11-23 14:22:09 · answer #6 · answered by vegan_geek 5 · 7⤊ 5⤋
I believe that there should be a safety net, albeit a short-term one, for folks who have fallen on hard times. Providing benefits in perpetuity saps any reason for an able-bodied person to better himself.
THAT, my friends, is "simple economic logic" (as one of your posters writes...)
2007-11-23 14:25:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
i know of some rich people who know how to beat the system and go on welfare also.
not just the poor collect welfare.
2007-11-23 14:25:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
The problem is that people go on it, and then stay on it. It is supposed to be temporary aid. Another issue is that the government doesn't remove people who begin to make enough money to disqualify them. I remember when ODB collected his welfare check, as Wu Tang Clan's album went platinum.
2007-11-23 14:25:07 · answer #9 · answered by DOOM 7 · 0⤊ 5⤋
it is implemented poorly
this system has flaws but we should help the poor....
lazy people are people that are emotionally wounded,,,
heal them, empower them, and they will climb the ladder...
i wouldnt work for 6 bucks an hour either....
2007-11-23 14:22:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋