I mean like the social welfare programs and health care and what not. I mean you should have to do honest work to make money.
2007-12-04 08:44:08 · 20 answers · asked by Rocketman 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I meant for people who can work but chose not to
2007-12-04 10:44:31 · update #1
No able bodied person should be able to collect welfare. Period.
2007-12-04 08:48:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 11⤋
The issue is the instability caused by not having it.
Suppose someone loses their job, and as a result loses their home, maybe because of coincidental damage costs or some random medical bill (if someone drives into you, you have to be treated, whether you have ready money or not).
The consequences for that individual are enormous financially. The only people who gain are the large corporations who then dispose of the property.
If some "tide me over" money is available it promotes financial stability (it stops loss), which is good for wider communities (there's more money around locally) as well as individuals.
Without social security, everyone below a certain threshold (basically everyone without medical coverage) is driven towards poverty inevitably.
The problem with social security is dependency, which is destructive and wasteful, so social security should be there, but it must be time limited.
2007-12-04 17:01:08 · answer #2 · answered by Andrew W 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You're only looking at one side of this issue.
The other side is that, very generally speaking, people will sit around and rot, become desperate, and break into your car or rob your house if there aren't any types of social assistance available. Whether it's a mental or physical reason, or a job-availability reason, or some other reason we don't know about, something is keeping people from working, and some of those people will do more harm to society without assistance than they would with assistance.
Whether welfare and health care are "fair" or not, we have to look at reality. And the reality is that it's in ALL of our best interests to have some types of social programs.
I think you have to kind of consider both sides. If it were as simple as you seem to be thinking, it would be all resolved by now.
2007-12-04 16:47:51 · answer #3 · answered by Buying is Voting 7 · 10⤊ 2⤋
I have a friend whom is almost a quadriplegic from Cerebral Palsy. He receives governmental assistance. He spells with his pinky and can jerk his right shoulder. With the assistance of a brace he does work on a computer scheduling pick-ups and drop offs for other mentally and physically handicapped.
Some of my patience can only open there eyes and literally that is all they are capable of. Government assistance is needed. As far as if you can work but won't...they are dirt bags. The monies wasted on them takes away from the people whom actually need it and they are scum or just ignorant. Sorry for the rant!
2007-12-04 16:53:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
There is a difference between "not working" and "unable to work", and "not being hired"
If you able, you should work. And if Business and corperations dont hire you....what then? Rollover and die?...or just pull out a gun and rob someone that has money so you can feed your wife and kid?
There have been times I have been unemployed. and Im glad that some jerk that really had a job, and I was fully able to do the job,( yet was not hired) didnt ruin my life.
2007-12-04 16:59:59 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Unemployment benefits are a form of insurance that people or their employers pay into while they are working and collect when they are not. Are you saying that children do not deserve health care because they are too young to do honest work to make money? That kind of looks like what you are saying.
2007-12-04 16:51:39 · answer #6 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Americans generally believe in helping the less fortunate. We collectively aspire to be a compassionate and egalitarian society. We may strongly disagree on government's role in helping the downtrodden and impoverished, but I don't think most of us want to see other Americans (especially children) going hungry, stricken with disease, homeless, and leading hopeless lives. With great power, wisdom, and resources comes great responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.
2007-12-04 16:54:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
That is totally wrong! There are people who want to work but cannot. as an example people who have seizures.. ooo lets make this person work when in 5 sec he/she could have a seizures and crash the place down. Its not the victims fault that they have seizures and are not able to work. Or people who are mentally sick... its not there fault!
2007-12-04 17:02:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I agree, to a point. These programs were not designed to be an alternative to earning a living or providing for yourself, but rather to be a safety net for emergencies and dire situations. Sure, some people abuse these things, but there are others that really do need it temporarily until they get things worked out.
2007-12-04 16:51:38 · answer #9 · answered by steddy voter 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Why do I have to pass a drug test to earn money and people on welfare don't?
I do not support taking care of those who should take care of themselves!
2007-12-04 20:14:51 · answer #10 · answered by Wine and Window Guy 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You mean like to corporate farms who are paid not to plant a crop. Corporate welfare is costing taxpayers a lot of money and it is not right.
The people you are supposedly talking about are people that have been hit with problems and need a hand up.
2007-12-04 16:49:10 · answer #11 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 9⤊ 1⤋