Does welfare focus on the wrong thing?..

[team green]

Why should the burden of supporting these people be on the working public? We are rewarding those that make poor choices in life by essentially saying, "It doesn't matter if you marry a loser, pump out 10 kids, become a drug abuser, and ruin your life...we will give you money no matter what."

Don't get me wrong...there are some people legitimately eligible for government aid (physically and mentally disabled). However, those who continually breed and continue to make poor life decisions should not get to live of the taxpayers forever.

I made good decisions, didn't have 20 illegitimate children, paid my way through college...where is my check?

[Cheese Whizz]

Obviously, it would be nice to help all.

This is a rought outline, but the plan could be modified so that the welfare program would be like federal student aid programs. that is, you don't have to repay the loan until 6 months after college, and interest is low.

It does seem a better alternative to letting people rot on welfare, or doing away with welfare completely, and most likely increasing the crime rate among other things.

[Cheese Whizz]

Does welfare focus on the wrong thing?..

I was thinking. Welfare seems to attempt to get a person a job, no matter what kind as quick as possible, if it does at all.

But... Should welfare revolve more around helping people obtain the skills necassary to get a decent job? Instead of merely supporting ill trained persons?

If welfare were to pay for college educations, in certain fields, fields that had a shortage of workers perhaps?

Anyway, people with college educations make more money, thus paying more in taxes. So instead of giving someone 500 bucks a month to sit on their ***, give them money to go to college, in the long wrong, the government would probably turn a profit.

[Zamboni]

I agree. It would be better off if welfare tried to help them get good jobs. All too often it is a huge paycut for a welfare person to go to work. They get minimum wage, no benefits, no insurance. I have a cousin who had three kids by the time she was 18. She made some bad choices as a kid and couldn't get away from the ramifications of them. Her hubbie left her. She wanted to get off welfare but couldn't. Under welfare she actually had a decent standard of living and her kids had insurance / medicaid. Given her lack of job skills the best she could hope for was a minimum wage job at $5.25 an hour with no insurance. A single mother can't pay daycare for three kids on that let alone cloth them, feed them, and put a roof over their heads. Never mind what happens if they get sick and there are medical bills. She was basically trapped in the welfare system with no choice but to stay if she wanted her kids to be fed and have a chance in life.

[DesertRat]

Let's keep in mind that this country flourished for 150 without a government sponsered welfare system. Why do we need one at all? Maybe it was a horrible experiement gone bad? Also, if I'm following your thinking correctly, then welfare recepients are entitlled to a college education, while people like myself, and probably almost every working middle class person in this country with more than one or two children, who will not be able to afford to send all of their children to college would not be entitled to the same luxury? Oh, I love being The Devil's advocate.

[jellybean40]

Originally posted by Thoroughly Incompetant:
Obviously, it would be nice to help all.

This is a rought outline, but the plan could be modified so that the welfare program would be like federal student aid programs. that is, you don't have to repay the loan until 6 months after college, and interest is low.

Your loan re-payment idea is a good one i think for welfare. there are many different kinds of people on welfare, some abusing it, and others who just need some help until they get back on their feet. here in Jersey, the system is now such that you can only get 5 years in a lifetime of welfare. which means, if you need 2 years now and ever need it again, you can only receive it for 3 years.

Some people do make bad choices, and some people dont know how to make any other choice. i have volunteered in Camden, NJ and if you've never been there, you cant imagine. if anyone comes out of there with a belief they can succeed, and any skills on how to do it, then they are an amazing individual. i cant see writing off everyone in that city without giving them a chance to learn SOMEthing.

as for college scholarships and college loans, there are many available, and not only for the poor or those gifted in sports.

to me, welfare should be there to help someone pick themselves up, to teach them how to succeed on their own, and always be limited in the final amount someone can receive.

[Don]

I may be mistaken on this, but I seem to remember something about Wisconsin doing something like this while Tommy Thompson was governor there. I have heard it worked out real well.

I believe they give a person a very limited time during which they can go to school and collect welfare. After that, they have to work. No more free ride.

[klar]

I think that welfare should be gotten rid of totally. I am tired of seeing people living better on welfare than I am working over 40 hours per week. IF I got as much free stuff as they do I would be happy. I am poor now and my wage I recieve from work keeps me from qualifing for any type of assistant even though I am living on just $150 per month for myself after I pay my house and van. I could try going cheaper but I have a house that cost less per month than a apartment and I already got rid of my nice truck. SO yes I have been on both sides now and I say get rid of the whole dang welfare system because it is not working for those who need it and it is being abused more and more.

Klar

[Webmaster]

Moving to Law & Politics