Welfare

For those of you who are so ignorant to believe that for every one person that deserves welfare there are 5 who are sitting on their "fat and lazy" asses collecting a check ever week, I have news for you. Who do you think you are to judge who deserves welfare? You have no authority and obviously no knowledge on the subject. If you want to categorize people, I will do the same. People who are not on welfare, obviously work hard and live rich lives and have always known those ways. None of them are rapists, drug dealers, or FAT. Obviously. Let me tell you something, there are so many new rules in the welfare system, it is very hard to collect welfare if you are just sitting on your ass. If there was no welfare, so many people today would not be anywhere in their lives because they have no resources to make it. Take myself for example. I am a 19 year old female college student. I have a single father who works in a foundry and makes 12 dollars an hour. He supports 4 children. I work my w... Read more

I  would never name a kid, 'Welfare'.

You know that welfare is a joke when a polygamist can used it to support his 14 spiritual wives.

And yet again, the Feds should GET OUT OF THIS BUISINESSmaking people give money for other peoplea govt run charity will never workremember jamestown, they were in major trouble until James Cook came, and "he who does not work, shall not eat"

There is a bit of a pollyanna attitude toward a lot of welfare programs. Some people like to think that all this money being pumped into these programs are going to help people and make the world a better place. Of course, these same people have to turn a blind eye to the fact that these programs have been in place for years and they arn't working. This is largely due to the fact that the system is being manipulated. Years ago I got a good look at what's going on, and for every one person that is just looking to get on their feet and are actually helped by these programs, there are five simply looking at it as free money and are content with living off the government. Race has nothing to do with it. Playing the race card on this topic is just the fall back position of people that have nothing more to say.In the "war on poverty", President Johnson stressed job training. President Nixon and President Ford kept that same policy, and it was working. I believe the poverty level reached an a... Read more

First, the problem with Welfare is the name. Welfare AKA Public Assitance should be referred to as either WELFARE or PUBLIC ASSISTANCE for that's what it is. For people in Urban areas it's Welfare and people in more rural areas it's Public Assistance. The label attached to each name is initailly the problem with the system. Welfare/Public Assistance is a necessary evil that provides income to those who dont have it. What they do with their money is really another matter entirely. We have the richest country in the world and being able to provide SOMETHING to our poorest people is something that always needs to happen. The problem with Welfare/Public Assistance is getting people off a dependence of it. This was something that the Clinton administration attempted to deal with. That's where the real problem lies, getting generations who have become dependent on welfare/public assistance off the program or having them earn their checks.

Another issue in which the debate reveals much more about those who are Anti (cf. abortion, hippies, etc) than about the issue itself. The anti-welfare people always conjure up the same prejudicial image of black people with fine cars, etc., about whom they conclude that they can't possibly afford such things, ergo must be on welfare. And the Antis also attack the mothers who are supposedly giving birth just for the welfare payments, and in the same breath attack abortion and contraception programs. The truth is that welfare has been drastically reduced, but only to the point where it can continue to be used as an occasion for all kinds of complaints driven by racial resentment. It's a tired issue, thus 2 stars ...

This is an extremely sore issue with me.  I put two stars because, I KNOW that some people really need assistance.  The ones that burn me up are the people dressed in furs and dripping jewels, driving their Escalades and using food stamps (or, in MI, referred to as The Bridge card) at the grocery store.  I was a single parent of two and guess what?  You just work another job ~ or go to school and find a better job.  I think that Mitt Romney hit it on the head when he proposed that "welfare" should be handled by the churches ~ as it was pre-FDR.  Too many people looking for hand-outs.  To elaborate on the SOME people, I believe that some people CAN'T physically work - but, there are always at-home jobs.  The medicl insurance part is the only thing I can say that is worthwhile of the whole system.  People need to be responsible, and be held accountable ~ not to some over-worked social worker, but to the tax paying public.  I think we let some people get away with being on this program fo... Read more

Welfare had a purpose when it got started...to help people.  Now those of us working our butts off to get all our bills paid get our taxes given to the fat and lazy.  I know people who need assistance...and they do what they can to get back on their feet and get off govmt asst.  They want to be self effecient.  Im just glad they limited benefits by only allowing so many children.  Ever notice that the least intellegent and motivated people are the ones out there having so many children?  Our future generation folks......

If only the US would get over "morality" and move to an equality agenda. Well, I can only dream.

First, in USA there's a thing called the welfare reform, that started almost ten years ago. The welfare reform imposes a time cap on recipients and force them to go to job-readiness and training programs in order for them to keep their benefits. People in welfare are supposed to get education and assistance to get jobs. In the years that follow, the welfare system has reduced the money people receive. With the idea of getting people out of welfare, the welfare reform became law in the late nineties. The problem is with the agencies that are receiving funding from our taxes to "help" people in welfare get jobs. Those organizations receive billions of dollars and the help they offer is minimum to the welfare recipient. Our tax money is not being heavily wasted by the welfare recipients, but by those so called welfare-to-work programs that are taking the money and doing NOTHING. Those organizations are the ones people should be angry at.

To those that say that the welfare system is a handout to the greedy, I say: then why don't YOU go out there and try living on government handouts for oh, say, one year. It cannot be done. We owe it to ourselves to hang out a safety net for those who cannot help themselves during times of crisis. On the other hand, the system also needs to be tweaked to insure that only the truly needy are aided.

I agree with everybody that said welfare should be short-term. I work in Camden NJ and know that their are many on welfare there. I know that it is a way of life for many and they are happy receiving a check every week for doing close to nothing. It really pisses me off when I see them driving around the streets in their $1000 honda civic with $3000 rims on it....HOW CAN THEY AFFORD IT!?! Oh yeh my my tax dollars paid for it. There needs to be a different way to help the truely needy that truely want to contribute to society.

How disgusting. Sure, I can understand welfare for, at the most, maybe a couple months. But for hells sake people, get a job! I'm sick of tax dollars going to drugged-alcoholic-lazy good for nothing welfare bloodsuckers.

I want welfare to be short-term to get them on their feet, but no more. I'm sick of my tax dollars going to support their alcohol, drug, or child-bearing habits!!!!!!!!!! People used to be embarassed to say they were on welfare-now, they are proud of it-disgusting!!! Lazy, disgusting, moochers.

I was going to put only 1 star, since welfare doesn't take up very much of the budget, but then I realized it might include socialist corporate welfare too.

I'm just as sensitive as most regarding those who would exploit the welfare system unjustly. My brother told me about a guy he knew at Princeton University who applied for welfare payments after graduation, all while receiving money under the table to work at a bar located near his university friends. Cons exist everywhere, and this isn't fair to those of us who have to pay more in employment taxes because of them. Yet it would be unethical not to provide a safety net for folks who are truly needy, and this net would ideally revolve around business-sponsored programs that emphasize job matching and skills training, or community service. Whatever reforms occur, society must not forget people who are severely physically or mentally handicapped. I would hope that Christian conservatives recognize that helping truly needy folks is consistent with faith in Christ, and choose ethical reform of the holes over aligning with those who call across-the-board cuts.

From several excellent posts, including a very concise one from jgls, it seems that most people approve of the existence of a safety net but acknowledge that the present system allows some (though less than previously) abuse by the recipients. I am all for welfare, too, only I think that the worst possible candidate to administer such a program would be the federal government. I think that Reagan was on to something with the decentralization of this type of waste-laden program by delegating it to state and local authorities to oversee. The folly of believing that a federal bureaucracy could efficiently (or competently) administer such a program makes me realize that only a liberal could possibly propose it as the best solution to this problem. There is certainly a better way, a country that cares about its poor and is willing to spend trillions of dollars in an effort to help them, deserves a better solution than we'll start a federal program to make sure it's efficiently run.

as someone who has worked in this field i have been able to see the pros and cons of welfare. as the system stands today there are time limits for those who receive it, so it is less likely to be a way of life. families are no longer rewarded with larger grants if they keep having children while receiving aid. recipients are required to work and if they fail to do so, their grant is reduced. there is mandatory job training that has some degree of success. unfortunately when recipients fail to meet their obligations their grant is only reduced instead of stopped entirely. the cycle of poverty is difficult to break and while some become self-sufficent, many others don't. when one receives welfare the recipients have an unrealistic view of how thing actually work in the real world because when they receive aid they may receive child care at no cost, and as well as obtaining vehicle repairs, their transportation may be paid as well. these are good aspects of the system as it is n... Read more

Reduce it drastically.

I'm not against welfare, there needs to be some sort of saftey net in place for a society as prosperous as ours. I'm just against hand outs. Some sort of small civil service should be required for benifits. Is that too much to ask?

No one should be left to rot on the streets. Especially not a child. But here is something that makes me angry: Once there was a little prosperous Haitian girl I knew. She had a job. She was working and happy. Then eventually she got caught up with some very bad people, gangmembers. The girl dropped her job and stays at home doing nothing and recieving a $400 dollar check each week. It's pathetic. I think she needs to get a job or do some volunteer work. But I still support welfare for working or teen moms or homeless people.

Welfare is a touchy subject. I know it was created to help out people who were having a hard time making ends meet. BUT it was only supposed to be temporary. It is not intended to support families for generation after generation as a way of life. I know it mainly helps out families,especially mothers with children. I would never want to see someone be homeless or starve.However I do feel resentful when I know of families where the mother keeps having babies and has no intention of going off the welfare.and our tax money is supporting them. I do agree there should be some kind of limit of how long a person or family can remain on welfare. They should not be allowed to be on the welfare for life.

The issue of welfare is an emotional one. Only the most libertarian take the position that no assistance should be given to the least fortunate; however, the problem with welfare is that it has lost its way somewhat. The first thing to consider is whether welfare is revolution insurance, a minimum standard of living, critical mass assistance, or some combination of the three. If revolution insurance, welfare need only placate the masses enough to keep them happy enough to not rebel against the establishment. Believe it or not, this is probably the actual reason welfare was enacted and maintained for most of history. Nevertheless, the less cynical can look to the other two goals. For a minimum standard of living, it doesn't matter how lazy or undeserving the recipient is, some minimum quality of life is provided by society. I personally have no problem with this as long as the minimum is not excessive (as it seems to be now) and the recipients do not live better than actual taxpay... Read more

Yes. More work for money programs, please. Get it...work for money. It's called a job. More programs from private industry please.

Good in theory, bad in reality. Welfare ends up perpetuating the problem, not creating a solution. Does it really hep to pay someone for not working, not paying taxes, and adding to the population explosion? I think that the money that goes into welfare would be better spent on creating and finding jobs for these people. If they had jobs not only would they be earning their money, but they would also be adding a boost to our economy. The only people who should receive money from the government are those who are critically disabled or too old to work (or government employees of course, my teacher needs to get her paycheck somewhere, and she IS doing a job).

I would agree with Redoedo on the notion that Welfare should be decentralized. Then again the same logic applies to most big businesses in that they become more inefficient and less moral as they grow larger. Thats not my point though, the point is that every human being deserves welfare.

Unlike Noah seems to think, welfare isn't a dream, take it from someone who knows. No one who is on it is lucky. How can you say that a woman with kids can live comfortably on a measely $200 dollars a month? I know most people will take offense to this but there ought to be more money spend on welfare or at least a halt to the "welfare reform" brought to us by Clinton which only succeeds in forcing people to work in dead end jobs and seperating parents from children to pay back welfare. This doesn't solve any problems of needed education to obtain better jobs. The welfare to work program ought to be stopped. One more thing, welfare is often blamed for everything and anything by politicians when in truth it is only a sliver of the federal budget.

Welfare is abused by lazy people who need to stop depending on taxes from people who actually work for their money, and start caring for themselves! Charity should be optional, not required by the government!

Welfare should only be given to the mentally handicap or retarded. Most people who recieve welfare can work- they just dont want to. People having several welfare agenices have thousands coming in every month. Welfare needs to be controlled much more carefully. People need to work in this world; they need to EARN thier money. Welfare ruins this theory.

I think we'd all agree about one thing on welfare- it looks good on paper. You read this new plan which states that we're going to help support the less affluent while they go out and look for a job. Most of the time, this is the intention and it helps people get back on their feet. However, in some cases, people, espescially mothers who keep magically reproducing babies, take advantage of the program and use it as a career choice. I fully support the ideal of welfare- but I want to ensure that the money is going into the right hands. However, I believe that welfare beurocracy could me better controlled if it were handled more on state and local levels rather than by the federal government. This way we can ensure that the money does go to the hands of the needy and truely disadvantaged folks, while keeping the lazy unproductive slackers under close surveilance so their fraud can be detected. I fully support making Welfare fraud a capital offense, because it is the exact same thing as s... Read more

Welfare is stealing, plain and simple. It takes millions of tax dollars out of the hands of hard-working, productive citizens, and spoon-feeds it to the lazy, unproductive, freeloaders of the nation. It's completely ridiculous.

I totally agree, the hard working people (lower middle class) get nothing from our country while others get it all for doing/giving nothing back to our wonderful nation. things of this nature will be the ruin of our country!

A well-meaning system that is highly abused. I think it's good to help those who lost their job to "get back on their feet" for a while, but I think it's really important to help those on welfare get OFF welfare so that they earn a living on their own. It's the giving a man a fish vs. teaching him to fish scenario. I also think that welfare is terribly misused; I know a woman who was on welfare, a very dear person. One day, after grocery shopping, she brought back a pound of SHRIMP, cooked it, ate one, and threw the rest away because she didn't like it. Money that could have been better spent on bread or potatoes or chicken for her children, thrown away so carelessly. It's sad to see a charitable system tossed in the garbage.

The job of a democratic government is to help the people and maintain a democracy. This is a necessary part of that and is key to our countries well being.

In its current state, welfare is the worst thing you could do for most people. I understand there are some people, i.e., handicapped, mentally retarded, stricken with a real disease (laziness is not a disease), etc., who should actually be on it, but most do not. I cut meat in a grocery store and I see people barely out of their teens already on welfare, food stamps, w.i.c., you name it. It's not because they can't get out and work, it's because they don't want to! Why should they? I used to work with a woman who drew over $400 a month on food stamps, she had a newborn on w.i.c., a three-year-old on w.i.c., and she herself was still on it. Her husband was a husky, six-foot plus guy who tinkered around on his brothers cars for no pay while she got out and worked. Now, at least she DID work, but if he had any morals or pride at all, he would get off his butt and go to work and stop making all the taxpayers support his kids. Now, if he was disabled or something like that, I don't have any... Read more

I'm for helping the less fortunate, but I think welfare should be temporary for people. We should concentrate on trying to help them get back on their feet by helping them get better jobs and education and stuff like that, not giving them free handouts all their lives.

Too many people take advantage of the system and spend their entire lives on welfare.

Welfare sucks because so many stupid American adults just want to be on welfare so they do not have to work and earn a living. welfare is to blame for so many Americans being unemployed and the decline of our economy. I think that a lot of American adults just want to be on welfare so that they do not have to work and be lazy crappy people since they are capable of working. welfare should be only for poor disabled citizens who cannot work, not for lazy people who hate working for their living.

ABOLISH it!

Some form of welfare is essential in a civilized society, despite what both Noah and Marc Chatow/MCHATOW seem to believe. The ABUSE of the welfare system is what needs to go. I wish I had the answer, but far more knowledgeable people than I have failed to solve the problem. To me, the single worst facet of the system is the way it continues to throw money at the problem rather than trying to provide any real solutions. Increased training opportunities could help to provide options to those people who may have been unable to afford education or who may have been locked into early choices. Maybe it would help to have a bridging period where people trying to get off welfare are not penalized for earning? It's an issue that isn't going to disappear just because we'd like to see it go away!

Yes it good for people who dont have jobs

This is one of the most enabling aspects of our government. Unfortunately, it often times appears only to enable generation after generation of unwed mother to have baby after unwanted baby simply to increase the money they receive. I know that is a sweeping generality and not true in all cases – therefore, I give it three stars instead of one for the people who have been forced into it and have used it responsibly and because of the fact that it is need of changes not complete destruction due to those few who really need it. But let’s be real – the former usage does exist – I’ve seen it first hand. Keeping people tied up in this system by allowing them to remain dependant is simply not fair to them and the wrong way to go about giving them help. It is a disservice to them AND the taxpayers who pay the bill. A few years ago I heard some poor ignorant girl of about 20 – a single mother of about three children at that point - refer to her welfare check as a salary. I nearly lost i... Read more

This is a terrible system. The workers are rude and impatient and they make you wait hours for an interview. They don't give you enough to live on. They do not allow for high rents or other high costs of living. They make you work sweeping streets for the "privilege" of getting that piddly little check -- I have seen elderly men and women out there pushing brooms. I think they should raise amounts of checks, hire workers who act like they really care about people, and cut those long lines.

It is the responsibility of the government to supply pecuniary aid to struggling, poverty-stricken families in their country. People may have lost jobs to due discrimination or other illegal causes. I've never heard a more ignorant statement than "get a job."

Welfare was Lyndon Johnson's way of creating the great "Democrat Party Plantation." Welfare has been a disaster of a social program. It gives people incentives not to work. Teenage pregnancy has skyrocketed because the more children you have, the more welfare you receive. Having children to receive a government check. Great hope for our future, isn't it? We have churches and community based organizations that help the disadvantaged until or unless they can get back on their feet. There are major problems when the government gets involved. Welfare should be abolished. That would reduce the number of illegitimate children being born every year. Today's illegitimate children are tomorrows social problems. Government supported welfare is a terrible idea. We need to get away from the idea of big government and let local charities and churches take care of the truly needy poor. That is a much better solution to the problem.

Welfare is a very touchy issue. I support welfare only on a TEMPORARY basis. I do not believe that the government should give handouts to people who would live half of their lives on the governments dime. Although President Clinton signed it reluctantly only to secure his reelection in 1996, welfare reform has been one of the single greatest legislative achievements of the 1990's. I support welfare in general, but only if people are looking for employment while they are recieving checks from the government. I also support training programs for blue collar workers who have been laid off because jobs in the manufacturing sector in this country are not needed as much any more. Now there are people who genuinely need welfare because they handicapped and cannot work. Fine, I believe that the government should be avilable to help those who cannot help themselves, but we need to make this definition a little more clearer. Welfare policy has become plenty more efficient in the past few years, ... Read more

I'm sure it is necessary to have welfare. But if a single mother can make more money from having babies than from getting a job then there is a problem with the system. like i read if a woman on welfare gets a job, her welfare benefits get slashed, then she can't afford as much as she could when she didn't have a job. how to rectify such a problem is a complicated issue. perhaps more of that decision should be passed down to the states, or even the local governments. cause then the resulting problem is that mothers (and fathers) don't instill any kind of work ethic in their children, and the children end up in the same place they did.

Growing out of England's Poor Laws, welfare is a tremendous benefit for those who want to work but simply can't because of financial hardship, emotional or mental illness, physical handicap, or other misfortunes beyond their lack of control. We live in a culture that values work but is maddeningly inconsistent with its solutions. Clinton's Welfare-to-Work Program is commendable. However, I am not so proud that I wouldn't accept help from others if my wife and I were hungry and could not pay our bills. HEAP and food stamps have been literal lifesavers, as have church donations and support from family and friends. I believe hardship makes everyone a bit more understanding of what it's like to go without, and certainly more tolerant of those who are the "have-nots" in our society.