NationStates Jolt Archive

I think welfare should be limited to those with some disability.

I think welfare should be limited to those with some disability.

Thats because you are cold hearted and un caring :!:

Welfare is a way to keep the working class dependent on the state. Yes, I know. All I talk about is anarchism.

-----------------------------------------
R j00 b45h|n9 m3j3 6r4mm4r, ph45c|57?
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

I think welfare should be limited to those with some disability.

Thats because you are cold hearted and un caring :!:

Why should tax payer dollars be spent on useless air wasters that are un willing to work.

Welfare is a way to keep surplus workers alive until they are needed by the economy. As such, only giving them to disabled workers is a very problematic approach.

Welfare is a way to keep the working class dependent on the state. Yes, I know. All I talk about is anarchism

I've always considered welfare to be somewhat socialist in nature. While I think it can be a big help to *some* people, it's turning many unemployed parts of the US into lazy people not searching for work. I say that in order to qualify for welfare you must be energecitcally searching for a job

Why should tax payer dollars be spent on useless air wasters that are un willing to work.

Because "Welfare" isn't just about doleing out money to people who don't have jobs. Many welfare programs cover areas like childcare for working parents. Welfare programs primarily support low-income, working families.

I think welfare should be limited to those with some disability.

Thats because you are cold hearted and un caring :!:

Why should tax payer dollars be spent on useless air wasters that are un willing to work.

Because each and every human being is inherently valuable.

That doesn't sound like a good idea.

I think welfare should be limited to those with some disability.

What about people who can't find work? Not all unemployment is by choice.

As one whose family once used it? Nope!

My old man decided fatherhood and family was wrong and ran out on us. My mom was raised with the troglodyte mentality of being a housewife suddenly found herself needing a job.

Goverment assistence is what allowed her to keep the house and provide for a "decent" meal.

Outcome of this family: She is an RN, I am a WAN Engineer, and my sister designs costumes for New York theater productions.

Have we used goverment assistence since then? I once applied for unemployment during the "Camelot" era of Reagan.

To suggest that it only generates a "welfare culture" is wrong.

However, there are people that will abuse any system.

Welfare is evil. Come to my neighborhood and take a good look at what it does to people and you will agree.

As one whose family once used it? Nope!

My old man decided fatherhood and family was wrong and ran out on us. My mom was raised with the troglodyte mentality of being a housewife suddenly found herself needing a job.

Goverment assistence is what allowed her to keep the house and provide for a "decent" meal.

Outcome of this family: She is an RN, I am a WAN Engineer, and my sister designs costumes for New York theater productions.

Have we used goverment assistence since then? I once applied for unemployment during the "Camelot" era of Reagan.

To suggest that it only generates a "welfare culture" is wrong.

However, there are people that will abuse any system.

Absolutely! This is a much more common story of welfare than the mythical lie of the "Chicago Welfare Queen" branded upon us by Reagan. Of course abuses occur and we should work to implement safeguards that limit them, but to trash the entire system is as stupid as saying because some contractor bilked the US military and charged them $1,000 for a hammer, we should get rid of the whole US military.

Since we are already "paying" welfare recipients tax dollars, we might as well make them do something useful, for instance, military service.

Since we are already "paying" welfare recipients tax dollars, we might as well make them do something useful, for instance, military service.

Problem slick. The military wants 18-21 year olds so that will only be a few.

You also want them out of the system so how are they going to get training or an education(mom went to nursing school at the time)?

Something "Useful" is a broad term.....

Quite the contrary, I think ,that while there are many who should be purged from welfare roles, the welfare system needs to be expanded and should take a more family-oriented approach.

Let me explain, when I was a seventeen-year old, recent highschool graduate my mother, who had been caring for me and my brothers and sisters alone since my father died in an automobile accident, died of a heart-attack. I was left with two choices, find a way to hide and care for 4 children or let the state become involved and have my siblings taken into state custody and run the risk of not be allowed to see them or even know where they were. I sold everything that we had that wasn't food or clothing and moved my family, the state didn't find us. I worked a few jobs for a while and I was able to care for my brothers and sisters but we still had nothing and in order to feed my brothers and sisters I sometimes went hungry. After almost a year of his I saw an old friend from the old nieghborhood who I hadn't seen for a long time, he had money, he was living well, he was stealing cars. I was always good with my hands and had a knack for working on cars, so I followed my friend into the business. After long while of stealing cars I was caught, I went to prison, my next oldest brother and sister, who had finished highschool and had jobs and homes tried to take custody of my two youngest sisters, they were denied. I didn't know where my sisters were or who cared for them and noone would tell me. My brother and sister were questioned and followed for a few weeks, under suspicion for being complicit my crimes, then the police and the state lost interest. They wathched over my youngest sisters until I was released. For years I wasn't allowed to have any contact with my sisters, I am a "dangerous" felon. I contacted them recently but they hardly knew me.

If the welfare system was reformed to actually help people, rather than to break-up families and pit families against the state, all of this could have been avoided. Policies should be changed to make the welfare system a case-by-case agency rather than a cruel bueracracy.

Welfare is a way to keep the working class dependent on the state. Yes, I know. All I talk about is anarchism

I've always considered welfare to be somewhat socialist in nature. While I think it can be a big help to *some* people, it's turning many unemployed parts of the US into lazy people not searching for work. I say that in order to qualify for welfare you must be energecitcally searching for a job

In some states that is already a requirement. It definitely is to claim unemployment benefits.

I agree. It must be in a case by case manner. But I have little faith in the overall system, however, especially given the recent and highly publicized case of the woman in NYC who lost both of her children to her former lover, who really did not even care for them anyway. The bureaucracy will, I fear, always remain. Whatever way we try to 'overhaul' it, there will always be the 'welfare queens' as well as the cases where nothing was done. I also feel that, given that state of affairs, it would be best to instead of vying for the perfect system, settle with an equitable system. Equity means merit, which is what any system should be based on. A work system, not unlike the WPA of the depression, would be in order. I may be disastrously wrong, so feel free to tear me to shreds. Good day.

I think welfare should be limited to those with some disability.

That's just f***ed up. Welfare is to help people get back on their feet who can't on their own. Not letting people with disabilities have it would defeat the purpose.

I think welfare should be limited to those with some disability.

That's just f***ed up. Welfare is to help people get back on their feet who can't on their own. Not letting people with disabilities have it would defeat the purpose.

No there will not always be 'Wefare Queens', where I live the system has been revamped to prevent that from ever happening again. First, most welfare programs are directed at those with dependant children, so cut welfare and you basically starve poor kids. Changes have been made that require those with no children under 5 to enroll in work programs. And don't think they can just keep popping them out to stay not working, you are now required to agree to not have anymore children while on welfare to qualify for benifits, well you can have them but they will be ineligible for benifits and won't qualify to keep you out of a work program. And even if there is a child in the home under 5, if both parents are present, one of them must be in a work program. Single mothers must also agree to help the county attempt to locate and collect support from the fathers of their children as a condition of eligibility, and the agencies have become very rigorous in tracking down deadbeats. Check out the system before you attack it.

HEY!

Guys, I may be a far right person, but I still think that you need to provide a minimal level of welfare for those who are unemployed. It may not be much, but you must not just starve people to death when there are no jobs. In a boom and bust economy, there will be periods where there simply are no jobs for anyone who wants one. It may sound left wing, but people must accept that during recessions, there simply are no jobs, even for those who are seeking work and will work for any low wage.

Welfare should be limited to those IN NEED. How you define people "in need" is another altogether.

i think it should only be allowed in extreme cases.

Welfare should be limited to those IN NEED. How you define people "in need" is another altogether.
Aand how do you find those who pretend to be 'in need'. I think any system where people are paid or given things for doing nothing has something inherently wrong about it.

Welfare should be limited to those IN NEED. How you define people "in need" is another altogether.
Aand how do you find those who pretend to be 'in need'. I think any system where people are paid or given things for doing nothing has something inherently wrong about it.

Something inherently wrong such as...