Should the government end welfare in the US?
I want your opinion on this debate to see what you guys think
Yah Fools
Yes
Side Score: 9
|
 |
No
Side Score: 5
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
People will always need help, but what the government is doing right now is similar to extortion. Voters (on wellfare) vote for a person who wants to keep wellfare, then they tax (take) our money and give it to them, and if you don't pay they can take your property money or even send you to jail. If you want to stop these problems go out and open a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter, but forcing people to give away their money is theft, not charity. Side: Yes
Tough, but for the sake of argument, I think it should end. For one, the population is too high. But death? If the threat of being homeless meant almost certain death or begging, then wouldn't that motivate a person to try a lot harder? It's not like charities would cease to exist either. I'm sure that because people die anyways, that this would simply clear up a lot of lazy people who use money that I earn from working. All welfare money is my tax money, and I would rather not give the little that I have to homeless people. Side: Yes
Should the government end welfare? YES Is welfare a handout for lazy needy, people? Possibly Have I seen over the years ladies with coach purses and fancy cell phones busting out their stamps and welfare cards at the checkout? YES I think the idea of welfare is good for a few who actually need it, but i have a hard time accepting it when I see so many people abusing it. Side: Yes
1
point
The welfare condition in the united states has done good in the past but it is becoming abused without active regulation in a number of areas. For one, the increasing number of illegal immigrants puts our tax dollars in the pockets of ill-deserving people. I understand their argument for the American dream and escaping their lives of poverty but there is a right and a wrong way to do so. What most democrats who support welfare use as the base for their argument are the families and single mothers who need this to feed their children. This situation accounts for only a small portion of the welfare population, however. If the government was serious about welfare for the less fortunate, they would give out food stamps and not cold hard cash to be spent on whatever they please Side: Yes
1
point
While you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If Congress had the right to give anything, the amount is simply a matter of discretion, and they have as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If they have the right to give to one, they have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, they are at liberty to give to any and everything which they may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount they may think proper. You can very easily perceive what a wide door this has opened for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. Side: Yes
|
2
points
Should the government stop handing out money? Yes! Should it cease being a welfare state? No. People will always need help, and I pride myself on the fact that I live in a country that doesn't let people die on the street like India, many countries in the Middle East, and Zimbabwe. Giving money to people will not, however, help them get back on their feet. It will promote the cycle of laziness and unemployment. Side: No
I think you make a great point on the difference between handing out money and providing welfare assistance. The government should not end Welfare in the United States. This is the evolution of government that many people detest, but I for one think it is a beautiful, and necessary role our government should play. There will always be the argument that welfare promotes laziness, but the way I see it, is it better to have welfare were some abuse the system, or no welfare at all? I will go with the first choice. Coming from a broken family where my mom had to raise me on her own, we depended on government assistance (mostly in the form of food stamps), and mark my words, that lady busted her behind to provide a decent life for me, to ensure that I was clothed and fed. I hardly often got to see her. She usually worked long over night shifts, and when she got back in the morning, I was heading off to school, and when I got back, I was only around her for a couple of hours before she was off to work again. It is extremely tempting and convenient to generalize welfare recipients as lazy, and un motivated, but I assure you that there are people who really genuinely do need help in the form of government assistance. I have lived that life, and I do not know what me and my mother would have done if we weren't able to receive food stamps. It is better to show some compassion, and be taken advantage of some of the time, then to show no compassion at all. Should the government give out actual cash. NO Should the government continue forms of welfare such as food stamps? YES Where to get the money to fund this, is really really quite simple. One example I will give is to stop spending money on a PHONY war on drugs. There is money to fund these welfare programs, but we as a nation need to re evaluate our priorities, and really ask ourselves, if we really do want to help those in need. Side: No
1
point
1
point
|
