English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Is it OK for people to be on welfare as long as they work hard towards getting a job or should welfare be abolished entirely?

2007-12-23 12:40:52 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

22 answers

On a federal level welfare is an extremely easy to abuse system. One of the many reasons it should be state program. The primary reason is it is not a power granted in the constitution. I would do away with welfare for anyperson who is not mentally or physically disabled. Anyone else i would treat as day labor. If they want their check they show up to the office and get in line and work for a local business who needs labor for a reasonable wage but still less than what they would recieve if they were a full time employee doing the same job. Than recieves a check at the end of the day. Anyone who was not picked up by a private business would be employed by the city/county/state doing labor for a the same wage. The jobs more than likely would be highly unpleasant like shoveling snow, trash details, powerwashing the government buildings. Eventually they will see that they could either do the same job for more pay by actually being employed doing or seek a better job. Add in a random drug testing policy to it and there would be a program with potential.

2007-12-23 13:52:29 · answer #1 · answered by cutiessailor 3 · 1 2

No, its purely welfare while its given to the undesirable. while you're prosperous its an entitlement. possibly they could desire to provide slightly thought to the reality that possibly purely possibly they could locate themselves interior the comparable concern sometime. how a lot of those laid off workers, people which have labored and paid taxes for some years and have discovered themselves out of artwork and competing with 1000's of people for a constrained style of interest openings? How long earlier unemployment dries up and that they nonetheless have childrens to feed? Their purely direction of action is welfare. purely considering the fact which you're fortunate sufficient to circumvent this, do no longer think of for a 2nd that maximum folk of people compelled onto welfare certainly like being there ... whether there are some that do. they at the instant are not the common welfare recipient.

2016-11-24 21:42:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

My opinion- I think it is reasonable for the government to collect taxes and to subsidize those in need. I do think that it should be tied to or include a program that will lead to the betterment of the individual. Yes it should have a time limit.


What we really got so upset about was when welfare was a life long thing and rewarded women who had children out of wedlock increasing the amount the more children she had.

We now face a trend in this country that is a direct result of that program of single parenthood . The problems that stem from it are chronic poverty and unsupervised children.

2007-12-23 13:12:46 · answer #3 · answered by Locutus1of1 5 · 0 2

I believe welfare should not be cut out entirely - but young, healthy men sitting around on the stoop of their house during the middle of the day doing nothing is sickening. Come on libs, do you really want to pay for someone to be a bum while they get high and make babies all day? This is the dumbing down of America for god's sakes! Only the elderly or those who are disabled or sick should be able to receive it. There should be STRICT guidelines for getting it. Otherwise, get a JOB, even if it is at McDonalds. Get a work ethic- if you even know what that is. Flipping burgers does not have to be a dead end - learn all that you can about the business, go to school and get some kind of business degree, and then work your way up in the company. You might be a district manager some day.

2007-12-23 12:52:03 · answer #4 · answered by mountaindew25 3 · 3 4

I scanned some of the answers in this section about welfare and found it very interesting. I helped my sister get on Medicare and coverage for operations needed for breast cancer. I, who have worked all my life in business, found it very frustrating working through the red tape and burdensome obstacles to getting help to cover the medical expenses and other associated costs of her medical needs as a result of the cancer. She is 78 years old, a mother of 4, and a widow of a WW11 combat veteran.
I don't understand the resentment shown to citizens who have worked all their lives in this great country. It is very difficult to overcome red tape that has been placed before any individual to get help.
That's why there are food kitchens, and homeless.
Folks, there are thousands of homeless people in this country seeking shelter, and warmth and food. Why should we deny them basic needs?
I will never understand conservatism. They are selfish and pithy. A poor example of human compassion and their expressions of hatred for the underpriviledged is unchristian which they claim to be.
Thanks

2007-12-23 23:10:12 · answer #5 · answered by telwidit 5 · 1 0

Because it doesn't help them over the long-term. Let's say they are on it for a short time and then they get a job. However, they lost the job and again go on welfare, etc. etc. the cycle continues.

Welfare makes people lose their confidence and continue to rely on the government instead of trying to achieve the American dream.

I believe people can do whatever they set their mind to. As long as they're self-sufficient, responsbile, have foresight and hard work, they'll succeed. They won't succeed if they're 23, three kids, a wife and a job that pays $9/hr.

I also believe that people should be able to opt-out of the social security tax they have to pay.

I'm in Socialist Canada, we have to pay over five different taxes.

Now to someone said Conservatives want to give money to Israel and Exxon. Now I don't want to give any money to any other country, but what about the other politicians who give 3x the money than what Israel gets to the Arab nations?

2007-12-23 12:57:37 · answer #6 · answered by Austrian Theorist 4 · 2 4

When people get things for free, they do not value it as much as something they have worked for. Welfare creates an attitude of dependency instead of one taking responsibility for oneself. There are situations where outside help is necessary but that should not be perpetual. Conservatives believe that it is one's responsibility to create wealth for oneself and not be looking for anything from an outside source to guarantee one's existence. Those who believe in welfare on the other hand feel that some people need help with free stuff because they are victims of injustices from society. My view is that there should be a balance between these two extremes.

2007-12-23 12:51:55 · answer #7 · answered by Zeezee 3 · 5 3

They want the money for war.
They need it to buy Foreign Friends with it.
I don't mind Single women living on Welfare.
They get very little money to survive on.
But at least when they have children they stay home and raise them.

2007-12-23 13:19:29 · answer #8 · answered by mw 7 · 2 0

Ok so we conservatives hate welfare because the people who have it depend on our government for their support when they can't even take care of themselves. They are poor run down, unemployed, american citizens. Their is no such thing as a person on welfare and employed with a working wage. The people on welfare should put up, shut up and get a job. Welfare should be abolished. period. The liberals complain about America's lack of money (not true), but than they support giving billions of it to welfare run down citizens.

2007-12-23 12:46:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6 5

Welfare robs people of their humanity. It is better to flip burgers or work retail than accept welfare.

If your statements phrased as questions were true; that would be nice. However, many people are from welfare families and will stay on it as long as they can.

They are also quite ungrateful for public assistance.

2007-12-23 12:52:01 · answer #10 · answered by julio_slsc 4 · 6 4

fedest.com, questions and answers