Would the end of "welfare" in the US be a horror or a great event?

United States
May 2, 2008 10:20am CST
I'm sure most of us fall somewhere in the middle, but which way do you lean? Every few months someone writes a new blog calling for the complete dissolution of American social support and gets angry responses about how terrible that would be. It is easy to point to parts of the system that need reform, but some claim that "band-aid" approach will never solve the problems. Where do you fall?
1 person likes this
4 responses
• United States
10 Aug 08
The welfare system should be abolished. It should not exist. An 18 year old with a child needs to live in their parents home. They brought the child into this world so they need to support it. Not the working people. Who made the decision for someone to have 7 kids that they can not afford to raise? It certainly wasn't the taxpayer. Therefore they should not be penalized. I know a guy who is 26 with a tumor in his chest. They don't know if it is on his heart or beside it. He can not get assistance because he worked up until a few weeks ago. His surgery is in a couple of weeks. So this guy who works can't get assistance. But if he were a bum that didn't work he would get everything in the world. What the heck is wrong with that picture. The working man needs to be healthy before the non-working. The working man feeds the system with taxes. Without him it would all cease to exist. Welfare people should have to pick up trash along the road if nothing else. I bet if welfare people had to contribute something to society like picking up trash along the highway they would find jobs. Some people are content with nothing and will take anything.
@irisheyes (4373)
• United States
2 May 08
There has always been some form of welfare even if it just meant the right to work and live in the "poor house" or "work house". Welfare can certainly be reformed but it can't be abolished without a new interpretation of the first amendment. Welfare is considered a right under the "right to petition for redress of a grievance". That has always been broadly interpreted as the right to petition for aid.
@clrumfelt (5421)
• United States
2 May 08
I wouldn't end the welfare system, but perhaps change the rules so that the truly needy can get it and those who are not needy cannot. For example, people who have a certain amount of income, investments, etc., would not be allowed to get a social security check if they are already financially secure. Save those checks for the people who truly are in need. If the waste was removed from the welfare systems then people could have a safety net just in case they ever really need it instead of getting it when they don't.
• United States
2 May 08
I think these programs serve a purpose, and as a humane society should be left in place. However there are a lot of things that could be changed or fixed. I dont think young people, who are healthy and able bodied to work, should be able to collect for more than one year at a time. Then they should have to seek work, and work at least a limited amount of time before they can go back on. I also see nothing wrong, with people having to pay back at least a small percentage of what was given to them, accept for disabled or elderly, either through volunteering, or money, or some other way. I think if tax payers are willing to help you out in a time of need, you should be willing to give something back.