Should the Government end Welfare in the U.S.?
ANGEL
2012/04/11 14:52:02
|
|
|||||
|
30 votes
|
|
41% | ||
|
21 votes
|
|
29% | ||
|
19 votes
|
|
26% | ||
|
3 votes
|
|
4% | ||
http://debates.juggle.com/should-the-government-end-welfare-i...
Here are some opinions in favor of ending Welfare:
1. "Far too many people use it as a crutch instead supporting themselves. I
agree that the U.S. government should end welfare because far too many
people abuse the system. There are a lot of people that could work and
are healthy but choose not to because it's easier for them to just
collect free money."
2. "There are way too many people who abuse the system. They prefer to be let go from work so that they can get paid to sit on their behind. It is said
that the hard working class has to carry those people. I understand that
there are ones who deserve and need it, but the US is not equipped to
verify who does or does not deserve it."
Here are some opinions who believe that the Welfare system should be continued:
1. "Welfare is an important program to combat hunger and poverty. Especially in
today's economy, welfare is a very important program to combat hunger
and poverty. While it may be exploited by some, that is no reason to
discount everyone else that needs the system to survive. For some
people, there are just no other viable options available to get by."
2. "I do not believe that welfare should be eliminated, but should have more
stringent guidelines. I think that it should be reserved for only those
who actually need it. More guidelines and requirements should be in
place to ensure that those who are receiving it should be. Drug testing
and education should be mandatory."
What are your thoughts? Should the Government end Welfare in the U.S.?
Here are some opinions in favor of ending Welfare:
1. "Far too many people use it as a crutch instead supporting themselves. I
agree that the U.S. government should end welfare because far too many
people abuse the system. There are a lot of people that could work and
are healthy but choose not to because it's easier for them to just
collect free money."
2. "There are way too many people who abuse the system. They prefer to be let go from work so that they can get paid to sit on their behind. It is said
that the hard working class has to carry those people. I understand that
there are ones who deserve and need it, but the US is not equipped to
verify who does or does not deserve it."
Here are some opinions who believe that the Welfare system should be continued:
1. "Welfare is an important program to combat hunger and poverty. Especially in
today's economy, welfare is a very important program to combat hunger
and poverty. While it may be exploited by some, that is no reason to
discount everyone else that needs the system to survive. For some
people, there are just no other viable options available to get by."
2. "I do not believe that welfare should be eliminated, but should have more
stringent guidelines. I think that it should be reserved for only those
who actually need it. More guidelines and requirements should be in
place to ensure that those who are receiving it should be. Drug testing
and education should be mandatory."
What are your thoughts? Should the Government end Welfare in the U.S.?
NOTE: This topic brings people together to the table commenting about a topic that doesn't necessarily depend upon your political or religious association. There
are so many polls on SH that divide people and I just want to change the
tide. So while there will certainly be opposing views, you may find that you
have a great deal in common with someone who you may otherwise have
found your self in disagreement with -- whether it be a democrat,
republican, libertarian, involved in Christianity, Atheism, Muslims, Scientology, Buddhism etc.
are so many polls on SH that divide people and I just want to change the
tide. So while there will certainly be opposing views, you may find that you
have a great deal in common with someone who you may otherwise have
found your self in disagreement with -- whether it be a democrat,
republican, libertarian, involved in Christianity, Atheism, Muslims, Scientology, Buddhism etc.
Top Opinion
-
**StarzAbove** 2012/04/11 14:57:41No
+6I know there are many abuses in the welfare system, but we can't let people go hungry for any reason. Kids have no say in what their parents do, and no child should ever go hungry.
I've seen first hand how people trade their food stamps for money. I've seen women living free with a man (not married to) and collecting rent money from the government. I've seen generational welfare and baby popping welfare and frankly, I'm sick of it.
People should learn that when they are sucking off the government tit that they lose some of their rights and freedoms and they should be drug tested.
I don't believe they should be able to buy steak on my dime. Many are working hard to put food on their family's table and others that aren't working shouldn't have better.
I think women should be put on long term birth control and not allowed to have children until they can support them on their own.
So much more, but yes, stop this current rip off welfare.
I know of people that go to over 20 doctors just to get them to say they are disabled.
Welfare is not working, it needs to be totally revamped.
I just want to stop the madness of generational welfare.
Good talking to you.
If people receive welfare, then they should prove fitfulness to receive it, mainly through monthly drug testing. First time violation cuts you off .............. forever.
If I have to undergo drug testing to keep my job, you should have to undergo drug testing to keep your welfare payment.
That'd be fair in my book.
There are families that 3-4 generations of their families have lived off welfare and refuse to better themselves, but they show up to get their stuff in nice new cars, wearing jewelry with high dollar clothes and hairstyles that working people don't have.
Improve the economic conditions such that there is no need for welfare, then end it.
Welfare was supposed to be for those who were unable to support themselves. That has now changed to add those unwilling.
I'm not saying that welfare is like a paid vacation, it's not.
There is no excuse for generation after generation of welfare recipients in the same family. Not with all the trillions we've spent on education and anti-poverty programs. Despite that we have major pockets of welfare in the inner cities and the Appalachians. The one thing they have in common besides poverty is drugs.
In fact, I would like to see it reformed to a negative income tax system.
Besides, setting welfare back would be political suicide.
If you want to see what happens when the government realizes it can no longer afford things the way they are and decides to take back even a little of what they were giving look at the riots in England and Greece. This, despite that fact that the governments have no choice.
Our politicians keep borrowing more and more money to pay day to day expenses uncaring that the time may come when our creditors cut us off. That is why our credit rating has slipped.
2: It is off-limits to the working elderly and those under the age of 25. This essentially makes it off-limits to the groups that tend to earn the least.
3: It is also available to those who are not living in poverty.
4: It is a smaller amount than I would expect of a replacement for welfare.
Do you truly believe that a government that has so mismanaged anti-poverty programs could effectively run a jobs program? Is that even within the jurisdiction of the government?
I asked "Do you truly believe that a government that has so mismanaged anti-poverty programs could effectively run a jobs program? Is that even within the jurisdiction of the government?"
I assumed that by "someone" you meant the government. Was I wrong?
Frankly I prefer the first way since it is a more natural approach.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/c...
"The size of the Nation’s workforce increased roughly six fold during the 20th century. The workforce registered 24 million in 1900 with those aged 10 and above reporting a gainful occupation. In 1999 it was 139 million (aged 16 and older).But it is not just the sheer numbers that are striking. The composition, compensation, workplace, and very nature of work also changed during the century."
The second way didn't work well at all. In fact, some economists theorize that the New Deal actually delayed recovery from the Great Depression. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/port...