Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 8 years ago

Welfare, should it be changed?

Back in the days of Lyndon Johnson, welfare was available on demand, they even built high rise projects to house generations of professional welfare recipients.

Then during the Clinton administration they reformed welfare and made it more difficult to obtain on a long term basis.

Today Welfare is a hot political issue, Conservatives blame it for much of our economic woes, but is it really that bad? How much is welfare responsible for our massive national debt?

10 Answers

Relevance
  • Biba
    Lv 7
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Even though, as Jay said, it doesn't cost that much of the federal budget, it needs changes. I think when a person applies for welfare, the number of children in the family on that day is all we should pay for. We should provide free birth control and abortion, but no extra money should be given for breeding extra kids. We should also do drug testing of those who are living on the public dime. The kids should have to stay in school. I don't mind helping anybody who truly needs it, but I don't want to be taken advantage of.

  • 8 years ago

    Welfare should be completely restructured. Today's system is the equivalent of throwing a quarter in a blind man's cup and wondering why he is still there begging the next day.

    Welfare needs to be remade to address the things that cause the need for it, not just giving people a pittance because we don't want to see them in our streets or protesting against the system. The majority of welfare mothers did not finish high school, and many cannot even read or write. When a mother goes on welfare, she should immediately be evaluated on the basis of her educational status. Then, on that basis they should be sent to school with their children. When the kids go to elementary school, there should be a classroom there that the mother is required to attend where she would be taught whatever she needed to learn, from basic literacy to the courses required to graduate from high school(GED). Once she can read, part of her homework should be to read to her children every night. If kids see their mother(or in rare cases, their father) being invested in education, they are more likely to complete their own.

    Once the basic educational deficits are addressed, the mother should either be shunted into a vocational training program or a junior college for a two year degree in something she can earn money at. After that, she should be given child care for a period of two years while she gets her feet under her job-wise.

    Expensive? Yes, it would be, but it would go a long way toward wiping out welfare completely in a generation or two. The money saved in the long run would be monumental.

    But to pretend that we can give them enough to stay alive and no more help than that and then expect them to do anything but survive is irrational.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Welfare is only a tiny fraction of our economic woes. it is a wedge issue...blame the poor. Incidentally, the maximum monthly payout over a persons life time is 60 months.

    When you look at the big 3 (SS, Medicaid / care, Defense spending) they are each coming in around 20% of the total budget. "Welfare" (direct funding to the poor) is only about 5%.

  • Shawn
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    I can assure you that liberals want welfare and other "free entitlements" not only to continue but to also increase exponentially since their power base is made up of welfare recipients who are completely dependent on government assistance. It's a vicious cycle created by a vicious Democratic party and a completely destructive ideology known as liberalism.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Yes, it should. Generational, increasing welfare is unsustainable.

  • 8 years ago

    Its only partially responsible the big issue is a moral issue. I don't think the government should take my money and give it to people too lazy to find a job.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Eliminated.

  • Jay
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    If you take all of the hungry children that have been fed, since "welfare" began, it still wouldn't cost as much as, say, one year of the Iraq war.

    Think about that.

  • 8 years ago

    look at the "projects", then tell me how good it worked..

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.