People have freedom of choice. If the choices they make cause them to be put into negative circumstances, how is it the responsibility of the government to take money by force from the people who make good financial decisions and redirect it to the people who make poor choices?
In this kind of system, responsibility will never be encouraged because people will never have to face starvation and death for the poor choices they've made. If compassion is necessary, why can't individuals and charities do it with donations instead of the government doing it with taxes?
You can argue that capitalism and the free market isn't fair but stealing from those who have earned their wealth is not exactly fair either.
People must work to earn their living. If they can't find work in one location, it is their responsibility to relocate. It simply isn't fair that I will have to live my entire life paying for people who won't work. If I want to help someone, it should be my choice.
2007-12-10 06:37:42 · 11 answers · asked by Justin 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Welfare is evil to me because it is legalized robbery. It gives the government the right to take your money and give it to someone else.
Yes, poor people need help, but only if we, as individuals, choose to help them. We should never be made to help someone by the force of a gun.
2007-12-10 06:45:02 · update #1
If we as a society are so uncaring, then how does welfare continue to be possible?
If welfare didn't exist, would we suddenly stop being a caring society?
Do the wealthiest of us, have the least compassion?
2007-12-10 06:56:14 · update #2
I think you would find that most of those who insist welfare is essential due to their compassion would likely donate little to nothing (at the very least far less) than they are now being forced to pay toward welfare if the program did not exist.
Its always easy to be compassionate when you are being forced or when you are dealing with other people's money, which is the current state of welfare.
There is vast confusion among the less educated that results in some insisting that lack of support for welfare equates with lack of sympathy or desire to help the less fortunate. This is not only a completely illogical leap, but could not be further from the truth. There are far better methods of helping those in need then providing a handout that requires little to no reciprocation.
2007-12-11 09:43:59 · answer #1 · answered by Marcello 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
lets assume we have no welfare. Please describe what will happen to the people that get welfare? yeah I know some will get jobs, what about the rest?
By the way, people's failings in life is not all their fault. We dont all start out on equal footiing, and do not all have the same opportunities along the way. Besides, in a society where some people will become multibillionaires, isnt it natural to assume that such a society will have a certain exhaust or residue which we can call the extremely poor? I mean we know that one law of life and of nature is that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
So the fact of the matter is ....if you are going to accept capitalism then you must accept that there will be very rich and very poor, and that there will be those who swim and those who sink. The question remaining then is what kind of society are we? Are we in the jungle? are we animals? do we just let that underbelly of society fend for itself and feed itself by going through garbage cans? will that invite chaos or crime? Does welfare help stabilize society by pacifying the needy? There is a whole lot more to this than your analysis touches on.
2007-12-10 06:51:46 · answer #2 · answered by theypissonourbacksandsayitsrain 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have no problem with my tax money going to help someone get back on their feet. I do have a problem with those who abuse the system and won't work even though they can, so they can get welfare. It becomes a crutch for some people. I know I sometimes see these people, and I think, "my money is paying for you to have that third child and you not work" It makes me sick. People like that make it hard for those who really do need the assistance to get it. I had to take a drug test to get my job, they should have to take one to get the money.
My mother-in-law is terminally ill, who knows how much longer she'll live and she can't work. Her doctor bills alone would throw them into poverty, so she receives disability, and Medicaid. No insurance company will cover her My father-in-law has a job and takes care of her, but her doctor bills are more than most people make in a year. Do you think we should let these people live on the streets because she's ill and treatments are so expensive? If you do, then maybe we should throw you into the streets with no money or food.
2007-12-10 06:44:52 · answer #3 · answered by .. 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Many people on welfare (such as food stamps) work full time jobs. The problem is that these jobs do not pay enough- health care, travel/commute expenses, and child care are extremely underfunded and therefore expensive. The system is set up to keep some people poor so that others can make billions of dollars. Many billionaires are not rich because they "make better choices" or they "worked harder" it's because they don't pay their employees enough money. This is true for many companies, including McDonalds, Wal-Mart, etc.
2007-12-10 06:47:37 · answer #4 · answered by mintyminions 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well one could EASILY argue that it didnt exist in the same way not that many years ago. Not sure if that helps but it is true
I dont have a problem with the idea of a safety net although it is questionable in terms of its Constitutionality (I always ask myself what the founders would have thought because that is the key) but offering people dependency as a way of life isnt good for the country but more importantly it isnt good for them, it robs them of their freedom, their individualism, their pride and so much more
2007-12-10 06:42:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Justin, I am a conservative and I generally agree that the less welfare the better. However, those who cannot work and children who are born into poverty must be cared for.
2007-12-10 06:41:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
How dare you!!
The constitution protects the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You aren't alive if you starve to death.
(just playing devil's advocate)
2007-12-10 06:41:20 · answer #7 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Welfare is a scam!
2007-12-10 06:40:01 · answer #8 · answered by oldmarine08 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, its not.
Our nation existed and did quite well before it, and probably would do better now without it.
2007-12-10 06:39:52 · answer #9 · answered by Yun 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
you are repeating propaganda we have all heard it
maybe get high and rethink your world
or marry for love... never a weaker mate....
both of these tend to cure your ailment
the top 5% have 60 to 80% of the wealth
the bottom 50% have 2%
the bottom 10 need help...
let me guess
you want mexicans deported
to stop abortions
and gay marriages
you want to fight the "terrorists" until we "win"
and you are white upper middle class....lol
2007-12-10 06:41:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 6⤋