Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kow on 2006-02-14 at 17:04:00
What are your opinions on welfare? I need some viewpoints for a project I'm doing.
I think that, unless you're crippled or physically unable to work, welfare should be eliminated. It's a waste of taxpayer's money that could be well spent into improving our schools or facilities. If you put someone on welfare, chances are they'd be getting more money than if they had a minimum wage job, so they'd have no incentive to work, keeping them in whatever debt they're in and using others' money too.
I think that, unless you're crippled or physically unable to work, welfare should be eliminated. It's a waste of taxpayer's money that could be well spent into improving our schools or facilities. If you put someone on welfare, chances are they'd be getting more money than if they had a minimum wage job, so they'd have no incentive to work, keeping them in whatever debt they're in and using others' money too.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by dumbducky on 2006-02-14 at 17:07:20
Agreed. Most people on welfare are lazy bums who don't actually need it.
I have come up for a solution that might fix welfare. You can only be on welfare if you are physically unable to work. The only other way to be on welfare is to have just lost a job. You can only get a maximum of three months of welfare if that happens.
I have come up for a solution that might fix welfare. You can only be on welfare if you are physically unable to work. The only other way to be on welfare is to have just lost a job. You can only get a maximum of three months of welfare if that happens.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kow on 2006-02-14 at 17:45:51
QUOTE(dumbducky @ Feb 14 2006, 05:07 PM)
The only other way to be on welfare is to have just lost a job. You can only get a maximum of three months of welfare if that happens.
[right][snapback]427194[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]427194[/snapback][/right]
Currently, according to sources I have read, you can only have a maximum of 5 years (I know it's still a lot) on welfare per lifetime.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-02-14 at 19:26:37
I agree... But there are not infinite work out there. all the people who is unemplyed needs the money. For example, a single black mother with 5 children and no home. What are they supposed to do? work at McDonalds for 10 hours for all 7 days a week? But I agree that welfare is draining, but it is necessary just like educational funding... It is ways to improve life and I don't think we can judge upon that...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2006-02-14 at 19:30:09
Maybe she should have realized that she couldn't support that family.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kow on 2006-02-14 at 20:33:55
QUOTE(procuress @ Feb 14 2006, 07:26 PM)
I agree... But there are not infinite work out there. all the people who is unemplyed needs the money. For example, a single black mother with 5 children and no home. What are they supposed to do? work at McDonalds for 10 hours for all 7 days a week? But I agree that welfare is draining, but it is necessary just like educational funding... It is ways to improve life and I don't think we can judge upon that...
[right][snapback]427361[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]427361[/snapback][/right]
That's why you have to re-instate child labor! [/sarcasm]
Maybe if she'd gotten a college education or not had 5 kids which I am assuming was either from getting knocked up or divorce. If it's the latter, there should definantly be funds coming in for the children. There are plenty of scholarships that could pay her way through college so she can get a real job. See? There are plenty of alternatives if the people would just get off their lazy asses.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2006-02-14 at 21:38:56
I don't see any way Welfare helps. Most, and note I did say most, not all, situations people put themselves into, and thus deserve to suffer the consequences. We should not have our taxes drained by people who farked up their own life.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2006-02-14 at 22:05:25
I do agree that welfare should be incorporated for military retirees and for disabled people, welfare for unemployment just teaches people to be reliant on the system.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2006-02-14 at 22:07:41
What about Disability Compensation?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-02-14 at 22:10:08
I'm willing to give them money.
Just not unemployed people.
Just not unemployed people.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-02-14 at 23:24:46
I was glad to see that many people have replyed to my previous post in a manner that I could consider a "Great job." But you people have to realize we can't cut off the fundings yet. It will hinder our cost of living and make us look like another third world country. That is why we should keep welfare. Without these welfare, we would look crappy in comparison with those of European nations. But I still think that welfare is needed for Americans right now or many will start dying of hunger like those in third world country. I hope my reason is valid... 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Doodan on 2006-02-14 at 23:58:48
They need a policy where you must present some sort of proof that you are seriously disabled, or you have just lost a job and need the money to support your family. These lazy, crack smoking government leeches (like my boy's mom and most of her family) are going to make it tough for people who genuinely need it in the future.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2006-02-15 at 01:47:27
Welfare should only go to those who are currently holding either a job or a community service position that is recognized by the city or state they live in.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2006-02-15 at 17:27:53
An advanced welfare system is a good idea so long as the sponges are squeezed out, so to speak.
There are a lot of people defrauding the social welfare system in the UK but, in a way, I can see why and how they would. Imagine you injure your back at work and find that you're entitled to incapacity benefits. You gratefully accept the money from the government but, when your back is healed and you can return to work, you find that you like your new lifestyle, and you fake your back injury...
Would you turn down money from the government?
There are a lot of people defrauding the social welfare system in the UK but, in a way, I can see why and how they would. Imagine you injure your back at work and find that you're entitled to incapacity benefits. You gratefully accept the money from the government but, when your back is healed and you can return to work, you find that you like your new lifestyle, and you fake your back injury...
Would you turn down money from the government?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-02-15 at 17:52:38
QUOTE(CaptainWill @ Feb 15 2006, 05:27 PM)
An advanced welfare system is a good idea so long as the sponges are squeezed out, so to speak.
There are a lot of people defrauding the social welfare system in the UK but, in a way, I can see why and how they would. Imagine you injure your back at work and find that you're entitled to incapacity benefits. You gratefully accept the money from the government but, when your back is healed and you can return to work, you find that you like your new lifestyle, and you fake your back injury...
Would you turn down money from the government?
[right][snapback]427937[/snapback][/right]
There are a lot of people defrauding the social welfare system in the UK but, in a way, I can see why and how they would. Imagine you injure your back at work and find that you're entitled to incapacity benefits. You gratefully accept the money from the government but, when your back is healed and you can return to work, you find that you like your new lifestyle, and you fake your back injury...
Would you turn down money from the government?
[right][snapback]427937[/snapback][/right]
Duh.. I don't see anyone in SEN who would refuse free money. But that is the problem. People are gladly accepting the free money and not getting the idea that you cannot be the freerider all the time. On the other hand, not all people are irresponsible freeriders. If you get no income whatsoever, you will die out in the streets. The point of the welfare is to improve how people look at America and their cost of living. If so, then i think we should keep it
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-02-15 at 18:18:04
QUOTE(CaptainWill @ Feb 15 2006, 06:27 PM)
An advanced welfare system is a good idea so long as the sponges are squeezed out, so to speak.
There are a lot of people defrauding the social welfare system in the UK but, in a way, I can see why and how they would. Imagine you injure your back at work and find that you're entitled to incapacity benefits. You gratefully accept the money from the government but, when your back is healed and you can return to work, you find that you like your new lifestyle, and you fake your back injury...
Would you turn down money from the government?
[right][snapback]427937[/snapback][/right]
There are a lot of people defrauding the social welfare system in the UK but, in a way, I can see why and how they would. Imagine you injure your back at work and find that you're entitled to incapacity benefits. You gratefully accept the money from the government but, when your back is healed and you can return to work, you find that you like your new lifestyle, and you fake your back injury...
Would you turn down money from the government?
[right][snapback]427937[/snapback][/right]
Probably, but if you're able to fake it that easilly, something is wrong.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Wolf on 2006-02-15 at 18:42:58
QUOTE
"There is a widening gap between the people at the top and everyone else. The challenge is to change the terms of the debate, not just from welfare to poverty but from poverty to talking about how to get an adequate income to everyone"
says keynote speaker Peter Edelman. Edelman is a former assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services under President Clinton. He resigned in protest after Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform bill. In addition to Edelman's talk, there will be a series of panels examining the intent of welfare, public perceptions, impacts of welfare reform and legislative strategies. Particular attention will be given to the current reauthorization debate involving the 1996 welfare reform bill, with panelists discussing recently published and in-progress studies of its effects.
says keynote speaker Peter Edelman. Edelman is a former assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services under President Clinton. He resigned in protest after Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform bill. In addition to Edelman's talk, there will be a series of panels examining the intent of welfare, public perceptions, impacts of welfare reform and legislative strategies. Particular attention will be given to the current reauthorization debate involving the 1996 welfare reform bill, with panelists discussing recently published and in-progress studies of its effects.
Something i found online, i hope it helps you. It helped me when i had to do a speech on welfare. I would give you some stuff from that but i threw it away. That was the hardest speech.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shadow-Killa_04 on 2006-02-15 at 21:26:44
Welfare is very flawed but I think its a good thing in general. I am fine with giving money to those that wouldn't have the ability to help society only if it was completely not their falt more or less. Obiese people get welfare which is complete bs. Cut off their money and they might loose some weight. People who are at falt in major car recks who get crippled because of it can get welfare.
I don't know the exact facts on this subject but I'm just saying what I believe in general.
Getting rid of it would save some money but so would many other things as well. Something like 15% of the budjet goes to roads and bridges type stuff. Or perhaps you could take a little bit out of the enormous military fund, iono.
I don't know the exact facts on this subject but I'm just saying what I believe in general.
Getting rid of it would save some money but so would many other things as well. Something like 15% of the budjet goes to roads and bridges type stuff. Or perhaps you could take a little bit out of the enormous military fund, iono.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Zombie on 2006-02-17 at 01:15:45
wel·fare Audio pronunciation of "Welfare" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wlfâr)
n.
1.
1. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
2. Prosperity.
2. Welfare work.
3.
1. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
2. Corporate welfare.
Mexicans abuse this, Thats all they live on, People sholudnt be allowed to have welfare, PERIOD! I hate the fact that people can live off our damn tax money, I see people seriously struggling, that needs this more than most people that have it.
n.
1.
1. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
2. Prosperity.
2. Welfare work.
3.
1. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
2. Corporate welfare.
Mexicans abuse this, Thats all they live on, People sholudnt be allowed to have welfare, PERIOD! I hate the fact that people can live off our damn tax money, I see people seriously struggling, that needs this more than most people that have it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Loser_Musician on 2006-02-17 at 16:07:02
I was on welfare for a while cause of my mom was trying to raise 3 kids all by herself. So don't tell me it should be gone complete.
But yes, I do sorta agree.
If you're a single parent raising a large family, or you're seriously mentally or physically handicapped, that's ok. Anything else, just get a farking job.
But yes, I do sorta agree.
If you're a single parent raising a large family, or you're seriously mentally or physically handicapped, that's ok. Anything else, just get a farking job.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kame on 2006-02-18 at 15:18:24
A waste of tax-payers money? Sure, quite a few people on welfare don't need it, but hey, I don't need a bridge in the middle of no where somewhere by Alaska. That's a waste of money.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2006-02-19 at 07:39:19
I suppose most people would say that taxes are generally a waste of money then.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kow on 2006-02-19 at 12:54:28
QUOTE(Kame @ Feb 18 2006, 03:18 PM)
A waste of tax-payers money? Sure, quite a few people on welfare don't need it, but hey, I don't need a bridge in the middle of no where somewhere by Alaska. That's a waste of money.
[right][snapback]429921[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]429921[/snapback][/right]
It would be cheaper to pay the man's paycheck than to build the bridge in that instance.