Do you think welfare should be eliminiated?

I think way too many people are abusing this privilege. They need to get up and get a real job. Its unfair for people that work hard to support their families and then we have support the poor. What about the drug tests employees have to take? People on welfare should also have drug tests for their free money.

I work hard for my money and I don't think I should have to give it away to somebody who can go out and get an education like anybody else. If they want aid from the government that's how it should be done, for schooling.

I am for supporting the disabled and seniors who are unable to work, but anyone else can get a job. Im 20 years old and earn more money than these people on welfare and your telling me they can't get jobs?

I agree totally. I am a single mother of 2 kids and work 6 days a week and do not ask for handouts. I raise my kids to know the importance of an education and the value of earning a living for oneself. Too many people keep having kid after kid after kid because they look at it as a "raise" from the welfare office. .

o, I don;'t.
I do, however, think that it's use should be more restrictive. We should be far more demanding of recipients so that they do have to accept any jobs offered them or lose benefits.
We now have 2nd and 3rd generations of welfare families and that is unnacceptable. We cannot afford it.
We should help those who genuinely cannot help themselves for good reasons but not those who just do not want to work. There should be a time limit on how long anyone can collect welfare.
Welfare assitance should be in the form of loans not handouts. If you need help you should be able to borrow from the government but it should be repaid eventually.
You can't get water from an empty well.

I think anyone that can work should work. And yes they should have to take a drug test to qualify for the program. It should be for people and mothers that can't work. Not for people that can work and don't want too. And not for woman that try to make it harder for the fathers to pay support. They need to look at the people on support too. Some woman like to play the game of "lets see how much money the state will get from him and pay me a week".. If they can work their is no reason why they shouldn't have a job to help support the child too.

No, I don't. It can be a very useful tool to help people get back on their feet. The 'costs' of eliminating welfare and leaving people completely on their own to our society is much more expensive than giving them aid. By the way, do you have stats on your claim that 'too many people' are abusing the system? Are you only talking about welfare for individuals, or are you talking about welfare for corporations? Should states be completely self-sustaining (no welfare), or should they receive handouts from government (welfare)?

Wait just a minute, do you know anything about how the welfare program works? You don't just sign up for it and get free money. You have to be enrolled in either a job training program, be disabled and not able to work, or actually WORKING via the program itself.

Before you complain about the welfare system, know how it works first. Those changes were made decades ago, but people still have no idea how the program works.

No I don't.
You want to be pissed about your money. Be pissed the taxpayers are bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Be pissed about the billions wasted, lost and stolen on the Iraq invasion/occupation. Be pissed about the pork. But find compassion for your fellow human in need. I'm not talking about those that work the system. I'm talking about families and individuals that find themselves in a rough situation. Those that need some help to get through.
EDIT: Can get a job! Do you realize in the last year over 600,000 jobs have left this country? Getting a job in these times isn't that easy. You are remarkably naive.

I don't think it needs to be eliminated- but I think there needs to be stronger regulations set on who gets it and for how long.

Some people genuinely fall on hard times and need a boost to get back on their feet. It's the abusers I loathe- The ones who make a living off welfare and fleece the system. They need weeded out and dealt with accordingly.

People with the genuine need and desire to make a better life for themselves, OFF welfare, should be assisted until they can make it on their own.

No, I think it should be harder for poeple to recieve because it's to easy for people to scam. I have a daughter with disabilities who is on MA. We have private insurance for her and MA picks up on what they don't pay. I have to pay a parental fee of $1,300 a year for her to have MA on top of the private insurance. While I watch imagrants freeload off the government and not be asked to pay a single cent. There are people out there that need it that don't get help and people that get it and don't need it and scam the government.

I am not sure that eliminating welfare is the solution to the problem. However I do feel as if you should have a "lifetime" limit of 5 years to be on it.

Once you get back on your feet and you start on the road to recovery, I also think you should have to pay part of the benefits you received back to society either through community service or by actually cutting a check to pay for the help you received.

I do not think it should be eliminated, because there are real needs, but it should be monitored much more than it is because there are abuses in the system. I also think there are many people on welfare who could do some type of work. They can be put to work doing special welfare jobs.....picking up trash on the streets...sweeping...maybe getting the money could be connected to
going to school and getting certain grades....

Here's food for thought:

We have to take urine tests (to test for drugs) prior to employments by the companies request. Why not have people who apply for welfare do a urine test to insure the welfare is going to what it is mandated for rather than to drug abusers. If drugs are found in your urine than no welfare.

Just a thought....

Welfare should be eliminated and those on welfare should be eliminated as well including the children. Who needs them?.There should be no abortion, but when they become children they are fair game. Our new vice president, Governor Sarah Palin agrees with me. She is a righteous woman who believes in getting rid of the superfluous.

No. We already have too many destitute people on the streets as it is. It is a disgrace.

The Clinton welfare reforms addressed the major problems that many had with the welfare system. This constant harping on trying to deprive basic sustenance to the poorest Americans is just mean-spirited selfishness and crass insensitivity. It is ridiculous.

no because there are people out there who truly need it. people who've fallen on bad times because the job market sucks and the housing market is in the dumps! i do think they need to do more investigating and set up stricter regulations. they should make sure you're not on drugs, make sure you're actively searching for a job and things like that!

can you stop thinking about yourself and think about the unfortunate of some people who cant get a good paying job because of their history, and some people who cant get a eduication becuase they have to work to help pay rent or something?? believe it or not you are priviledged, You.. Republican!!

We shouldn't necessarily eliminate welfare. However, we should tighten restrictions and revamp the system so that only the disabled get the benefits of the doubt. I say if you are healthy enough to work, then go out and get a job.

what do you think about corporate welfare? three times as much of the taxes you pay goes to corporations than goes to people in need.

one of the things about this country, that makes it so great, is that we do help people in need.

if the system is broken, it should be fixed.

Some of it yes.

Congress should say no to The Auto Industry looking for a handout today for a start.

What exactly is free about the market if The Federal Government keeps propping up failing business?

A society declines when the population finds out it can vote itself money from the national treasury. That's what is happening now

If you took welfare away all illegal felons and their children would not get the free education, free food, free house, and free ride that the gov. will not give their own citizens

No. I prefer people who are down on their luck to get a government hand-out rather than resorting to robbing my home. Desperation can drive even good people to do bad things.

When the space shuttle blew up over Texas it was declared a disaster and the Agriculture Department cut checks for "Disaster Relief" to all the big ranchers in West Texas.

I think welfare should be more closely monitored. I don't think it should be eliminated, that would be reckless.
Besides those who cheat the system, I know a few cases, both friends and family that I'll share, and you judge:
Case 1:
Married couple of fifteen years, both have worked and paid their taxes for 18 years. Husband bales on the marriage leaving the wife and children without thier second income. Mom teaches full-time, but the pay isn't great, so they fell behind on bills. Mom is in search of a job, dad is M.I.A., the family is beside themselves. Mom can't afford both rent and food, so she heads to welfare and they give her a debit card with food money on it.
Case 2:
Married couple, husband works, wife is a stay-at-home mom, homeschooling all three children. Husband has a gambling problem, but the wife clips coupons and makes ends meet. Husband has an affair and skips on the family. Mom goes to work full-time, but having had no work experience is only compensated with minimum wage. Dad quits his job because his paychecks were being garnished and claims a mental disability. Mom has to turn to welfare to make ends meet now--even though she works 60 hours a week at two jobs and her mom watches her children who are now in public schools.
Case 3:
Married couple, husband is a firefighter, mom is a yoga instructor and a cashier at a grocery store. Husband is injured and becomes hooked on the pain meds. Husband starts blaming wife for everything and abusing her. He lies and takes out an early pension to afford his drug habit. Wife begs him for counseling, but he declines. Wife holds an intervention, he refuses treatment. He kicks her ***. Her family moves her and the four kids out and into an apartment, but can only afford three months worth of rent. Dad refuses to pay child support, and while Support Enforcement garnishes his pay, the Support Enforcement officer calls her to tell her she owes them money because her husband has reported paying her cash on the side, which is a lie. She goes to welfare for food assistance, but is in the midst of being kicked out of her rental for 3 months non-payment.

I dunno. Unless you've been there, I suggest you not judge. There are real, hard-working people, who, like you, also pay their taxes. Welfare should be monitored more closely, of course, but not eliminated.

OH! One other: a recent college graduate, in her first home, a condo--thanks to a nice sign-on bonus, is watering her plants on her second story balcony. She slips, crushing her pelvis, breaking 4 ribs, and several bones, as well as her jaw. Her new job provided excellent insurance, but the cobra coverage was EXPENSIVE! Her parents paid it, until it ran out, but she is nursing home bound (yes, at 25!), and cannot walk. Her recovery is long and very costly. The nursing home calls in a social worker who enrolls her in the welfare medical benefits program.

These are all very real situations.

Yes, including corporate welfare.

What about corporate welfare??? The tax breaks to big oil is just one example of free money that costs much more to the taxpayers than social welfare.

Yeah. Good idea. Then the low wage workers who depend on its subsididies to make ends meet can move in with you.

Don't look of how little others get and learn how to appreciate what you have.

Yeah, the corporate kind

You're white and live in the suburbs, don't you?

NO only regulated
The corporate media would have us believe, based on their coverage, that the most important issues in this presidential campaign are political tactics and the "character" of the four candidates. But what is at stake right now is not primarily the life stories of Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden or Sarah Palin. An election is not a soap opera which deals with the trials and tribulations of the candidates and their family members. Election coverage must not descend into becoming a pre-game football show, one which deals only with "who's going to win" polling data and never-ending tactical discussions of "what the candidate must do" to win this or that state.It should and will be about the issues and the fail policies of Bush and the republican party
OBAMA/BIDEN 2008

Agree.

I agree welfare should be ONLY for the disable person and seniors who can not work.

I think you need to be quite