Should we abolish ALL forms of government welfare, and let the poor wither and die?

All you folks who care can pool your money, time and energy into helping them out.

 

Should we abolish ALL forms of government welfare, and let the poor wither and die?
I vote no, but not for the reason offered in your poll. Lincoln said our government was "of, by & for" the people. If that Republican goal is to be a reality of our culture, then government MUST be used to benefit the people. Of course, it has been programmed by the wealthy class to serve them thru all sorts of laws throughout American history. But, in spite of all the government services for the rich, they oppose ANYTHING going from the government to the poor--a reality I find hard to comprehend or sanction. Poor people are citizens just as rich people are, and should not be prevented from experiencing the benefits of society--especially those from government.

 

Of course we shouldn't let the poor wither and die

We should help them, Hunt the Homeless

 

But how can you separate a lazy parent and a child? If the parent needs food stamps to feed the child - but is himself lazy - how do you feed the child and not have the parent receiving the food stamps to buy the food? There are realities here.

 

In a perfect world - yes. But reality is that there are lazy parents who have kids. Or parents who have recently lost jobs or split up. Crap happens in the real world.

 

Most all conservative "Christians" I have dealt with think that the Book of Amos is right after the Book of Andy and shows how Jesus himself must have just loved minstrel humour

 

Yes, crap does. But now other people need to cough up money because someone else is lazy? That's where I have a problem.

Temporary assistance is one thing, we've all hit a bad patch at some point, but to treat it like it's someone else's responsibility to take care of the kids? No.

 

The binary nature of the wording of the poll prevents me from voting.

We absolutely must have a social safety net. That safety net should never be a pillow top king with room service for the able bodied.

Everything democrats do, they do to cultivate generational dependence on government bureaucracy. It's what they must do to remain relevant and viable.

 

So you would be in favor of eliminating bankruptcy all together?

 

Where on this green earth did you get that idea from??????

 

It was this line

"So if there is to be no 'penalty' (loss of possessions) if one exceeds their capability to pay their debts, what is to stop anyone from dumping their debts on the public?"

That implies that that instead of bankruptcy, people would loose possessions instead. So I thought I would ask you straight out. You could just say no.

 

Support for the less fortunate should be a more localized. The Federal government acts like a band aid instead of a cure. They try addressing the most symptoms for the most people but it means they end up not adapting their programs to the area. The inefficiencies are appalling and just lead to abuse and perpetual need.

Instead each state should be responsible for the overarching programs of food, medicine, and housing for those that need it. This should combine with the local city governments who should tailor programs to address the specific causes in their area. Then community outreach from NGO's should manage what is left.

 

I believe that societies that reward weakness, laziness, and failure will eventually be filled with people like this and be burdened with having to support them. They will eventually fall behind and lose the greatness they once had. For example, if we give welfare to the disabled and mentally challenged, there are a lot of people like this, and we are diverting resources from growth to a massive number of people to live for free. They will also be more likely to have children and we will get more of these bad genes. People who actually work and produce are becoming hampered down trying to support everyone. They have to support their children, their spouses who are staying at home, the elderly, education for children, higher education for college students, paying off student loans, paying healthcare companies, paying for healthcare for the poor, the hoard for government workers and bureaucrats, the military, the disabled, the mentally disabled, the poor, the recently unemployed, etc. In Europe, working people have to give away half their salaries just to support this load up people who don't work and the massive government workforce.

 

I implied no such thing, if you'll note the question mark at the end of the quoted statement. If I sound defensive, I've had any number of posters take a straight out statement and warp it to fit their view. It gets very old, very quick.

You do understand that during a bankruptcy proceeding that people CAN lose a number of possessions, right? The Presiding Judge can declare a number of assets to be liquidated, if such liquid assets do not already exist, to pay a portion of the debts being declared. They attempt to leave the debtor with the basics, but a lot depends on the 'whys and wherefores' of the bankruptcy.

 

What should be done with the mentally handicapped and disabled?

 

Good basis, but needs a little more refinement, IMO. Too many layers of government/administration sucks the $$ right out of the best laid plans.

 

You only rest your case as far as YOU.
Not everyone with a disability has your range of options, whatever those might be, which you refrained from illuminating as far as I can see.

 

I think we need to work in a system where the mentally disabled are taken care of by family members if at all possible with some government assistance to help. We can also have some public houses for them if they don't have anyone. We shouldn't devote too many resources to them if working people themselves are struggling to make by themselves. Maybe if our nation becomes more wealthy and prosperous, we can give more to them, when we can afford to.

 

Don't forget to include benefits and compensation for disabled veterans.
Not enough to just say "EVERYTHING", it is important to go into detail.

 

That was not my goal here. I was honestly wondering if that was your viewpoint.

And yes. I do understand how it works. My parents had to go through bankruptcy due to cancer. And that was with insurance. No one should have to do that imo. But there it is.

 

You mean, more wealthy and prosperous than we are right now?
How wealthy and prosperous are we right now?

 

What if they have no family who is willing or able to take care of them? This is often the case in very poor families.

 

I think we should have policies that encourages their families to take care of them. By far, families are the best thing for the disabled not living alone in some government house. As I said before, we should have cheap government housing for them. But not spend too much right now giving them perfect lives.

 

It's a very weak country full of couch potatoes, physical weakness, and poor health.

It's a weak-minded country full of "I can't."

We need to get back to nature and survival of the fittest citizens.

That's extreme but the laws of the USA have favored the weak-minded for so long, and what is subsidized grows -- weakness.

 

We are somewhat wealthy. The working class in America is struggling to make ends meet and our nation is loaded with debt. When we try to create a socialist utopia where everything is taken care of, working people have half their paychecks taken away, which really hurts the economy and working people.