Do you feel that it is good to take from the people who work and strive to give to those who won't ?
More than 40 percent of the people of the US do not work for an income, but rely on others for support. Do you think that Welfare should be so that people have to work to receive payment? Do you think that the US has become a take-give society? Do you think that it is right for the government take from those who work, strive and create businesses to give to those who sit home, fish, hunt and anything else because they have found a loop-hole in the system?
This is a tricky question because although there are a good number of people in the US who "play the system", there are also many who really do need assistance from the government.
I don't think we should be supporting the game players, that's for sure. However, until the government finds a way to weed out the frauds, we can't just cut everybody off. To do would be inhumane and bring great hardship and even death to many people.
The government has been sloppy in the way they handle these issues, and tightening up the requirements and constant monitoring are the answer. However, these things are expensive and take time and it may actually be less costly to let the slackers slide.
One thing the public can do is report any situations they see that seem like a loophole situation.
The problem is that it is very difficult to know just from "watching" just what's really going on. People who are really ill can seem, at a distance, to be normal. For example, nobody who watches me would ever guess I've had three hip replacements! I don't get any assistance, but I do have a disabled sticker on my car to make it easier for me to walk to and from store entrances and exits.
It would be easy for someone to think I was cheating, but I'm not. There are days when walking is extremely painful and I need that sticker!
We should support the poor. Both faith and most strains of humanism incorporate that principle of ethics as a cornerstone. We can do that privately, with the decisions left in the hands of those with a material surplus to give, or we can do it publicly, through compulsory taxation. In America it's done both ways, but slipping more deeply into the public realm with its attendant graft, theft and political corruption as through increasingly excessive taxation taxpayers are stripped of their ability to make charitable donations.
That being said, you're right that democratic devolution is reaching an advanced stage in the western world. Half the people have discovered they can vote themselves property expropriated from the other half. That is a warrant for societal death.
It is a ceaseless source of both amusement and amazement that the sociopolitical left, including its American dishwater version of liberalism-progressivism, holds the absurb conviction that it is morally odious to earn and keep enough to live well while there are other people living poorly, yet it is morally right coercively and on an ever rising scale to confiscate the means of those living well to distribute to its political supporters with a little left over for those living in poverty. The irrationality, for that matter the basic immorality, of that position is something that just flies over the heads of most people who support it.
Both faith and most strains of humanism incorporate that principle of ethics as a cornerstone. We can do that privately, with the decisions left in the hands of those with a material surplus... that has not worked out well in the past.
That varies. The convenient propaganda claim of the welfare state that it never has is not accurate history, it's politics. Charity has worked out quite well, in some times and places, sometimes as well and better, all consequences considered.
This is not only with US people, it happens in other parts of world as well. One more thing which I observe here in my country, there are some private charitable organizations (like salvation army) which serve foods to needy people on public places. The standard of food looks pretty good and even some middle class families may not afford that standard on regular bases. This tempt to some people to just ques-up for this instead of doing hard work to fulfill their needs.
Does that percent include the disabled and elderly?
"Do you think that Welfare should be so that people have to work to receive payment?" Work? No, but they should have to do some sort of community service along with active looking for employment.
"Do you think that it is right for the government take from those who work, strive and create businesses to give to those who sit home, fish, hunt and anything else because they have found a loop-hole in the system?"
Actually I wish that those well off would give to the needy without having to be made to. If the wealthy chipped in, along with the mega churches, and all the other groups out there we would not need the government to help. Sadly we are all too selfish to remove the government from the problem.
I think the help should go to those who simply cannot work due to health reasons, mental reasons, etc. There should be more programs to get people better paying jobs as well. Some cannot go to work because by the time they pay for childcare they are making less than what the Government supplies them. This is the situation so many are living with. There will always be those who need legitimate help, along with those who have learned to manipulate the system. This makes it harder for those who really need the help to get it.
Some people do not work because they have investments or small businesses and I think welfare should be for young mothers that are unemployed. Social security for the old and disabled. It would be a good idea to have a work welfare for those individuals that are able to work and have no income. The work welfare would provide them a work welfare job for six months under that system and then after the six months the employer should hire them for a year or more if they are reliable people..
40% includes chuldren, the retired & the disabled - how many others are there? real numbers please! not just romney-o'reilly's blathering
I definitely think there should be some accountability for those on welfare and I do think the USA has become a take-give society. I find it unfortunate that those of us who worked all our lives and are now on Social Security are viewed as "takers" along with the "won't work" folks and I resent it. The end will come to a take/give society and it shouldn't be long in the making: When more people are taking and doing nothing the people who work and are giving soon get tired of it and find another way to survive -- then everyone can sit on their fannies and starve to death together while the little money left in the USA coffers is sent to a foreign country to teach them how to fight? Most excellent question!
No, the US is not a take-give society. But if it can be proven that a person sytematically does not work through choice (I really find that hard to believe) then he should be taken off the pay roll. In Australia, a person is given assistance from the government, but the person is obliged to go work wherever the government sends him. If he does not, he will not receive benefits when unemployed again. In Greece, a person can get unemployment only if he has already worked 2 years prior to his redundancy. If he has not, he is not entitled to any benefits. But if a person cannot find work to begin with, how can he obtain experience and any form of benefit? Many people here in Greece ask the same thing as you (at the end). Those of us who work must pay taxes and when in need pay the hospital as well, if ill and are not insured by our work.
Illegal immigrants, gypsies and unemployed immigrants can go for free. My unemployed daughter cannot. Not fair is it? I do agree that there's got to be a way to make the systems in countries fairer.
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
Disclaimer: Not addressing the hard working poor who are trying to better lives for their families; the underemployed; the unemployed; the needy elderly; the physically, mentally, emotionally, and psychologically...
by IDONO5 years ago
Who is more likely to vote? Unemployment or welfare recipients?Even though the number of people is far larger of welfare recipients, ( in some form ) I,m guessing more unemployment people will vote. I'm talking numbers,...
by LAURENS WRIGHT4 years ago
How should welfare be handled, other than just handing out money, food stamps, gifts, homes, etc?I work in a low income housing complex of over 200 apartments. People there get the apartments for at least $50,...
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
bankrupting the United States? Before the advent of mass welfare, people worked and made their way in life. No job was too degrading to do as long as it put food on the table, clothes on one's back, and a house to live...
by Imani Faith3 years ago
Child support thats not about the child, and takes over half of what a person is making pluse jailNot being able to drive because of a unfair systems with DMV
by Foodeee3 years ago
Do you think General Welfare Programs will ruin our nation?Mainly, Giving welfare checks to individuals with no income. OR Free housing to those who are homeless.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.