Where is the evidence to suggest that removing the safety net will help the disadvantaged?

Answer 1

The government put the safety net there for many good reasons. Without one, people turn to crime or go hungry. People on welfare can't use it for more than 5 years in their lifetimes or 2 years if they are healthy and they must take job training and prove they are looking for a job.

What some people fail to realize is that, although the statistics for poverty remain about the same, they are different people using the welfare system. People do move off of welfare and out of poverty. Most people are embarrassed to be on food stamps.

Answer 2

Most people do not advocate removing the safety net but rather point out that the safety net has morphed into a way of life. The answer is limiting the safety net to safety net status. Socialism always results in less productivity and less drive due to less incentive. Former generations of Americans knew what hard work was all about and weren't afraid to make any sacrifice needed but not today. Look at a lot of first generation Americans like from India, these people will make ANY sacrifice to get ahead and they do get ahead. Breeding dependency serves only to ensure power to those offering freebies.

Answer 3

I think it depends on what the "net" is.
New York State has gone along way to proving that there is a middle ground when trying to improve the conditions of the disadvantaged.
Today I feel that every American who has to live without health care, a decent wage or who works more than 40 hours a week without overtime is disadvantaged no matter what the rate of pay.
The "advantaged" have been making policy for 20 years that rarely
improves anything for the disadvantaged. So to remove any of the safety nets now without careful consideration of how these people will be able
to live productive lives would be a disaster as proven by the number of homeless that currently exist.

Answer 4

Well cosnidering they would probably have a better standard of living if they were stealing from the people who want to "remove the safety net", or dealing drugs to their children, I would say that is evidence, that it would improve their standard of living.
But I doubt it would suffice as evidence that it would help them.

Answer 5

these types of social reforms are simply a tool for the empire in order to buy more time and rule!
they are hiding the filth under the carpet sort of speak!
they let out the air out of the balloon to prevent it from blowing up! i guess history would have many evidences to prove that.
welfare is a patch over the wound and only serves the ruling class in order to slow down the inevitable revolution!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhR6BhVrZ1I
peace

Answer 6

We need a safety net, but it is too comfy.

People on food stamps can eat much better than they could if they got a low pying job & lost their food stamps. This clearly discourages a person from making improvements in their life.

Answer 7

If taxation were revised there would be less of a need to have a safety net. A stipend from the government and no income Tax.

Answer 8

There is no evidence because that claim at best is Utopian right wing thinking (of those who really believe it works like that) but in most cases simply cynical misdirection meant to keep people from voting for the common good and instead continue to vote for the elite and against their own best interests.

Answer 9

In the disturbed minds of conservatives.

Conservatives are greedy, angry people dedicated to proving that the Golden Rule is false

Answer 10

Yes. Russia in 1913, China in 1949, and Cuba in 1959.