Should government re-assess the need for welfare services during an economic recession?

  • Of course. Welfare doesn't give people work.

    As the old saying goes:
    Buy a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him to fish and he'll eat forever.

    I'd call it a band aid solution but band aids stop the bleeding, whereas Welfare perpetuates it.

    It's a bizarre, and, I might add, wholly American idea that is very similar to the Prison system. America (and a very small handful of other nations) seems to think that punishment is the answer to crime when in actuality beating a bad dog does not make the bad dog be a good dog. Welfare is the same. You are giving people cash to perpetuate their current state of unemployment. You are supposed to help them find a job but in reality it often just gives them a reason to not get one.

    Now, if a single person needs welfare he is often screwed, especially if he is a man, for whatever reason. Single mothers get the most welfare benefits, as it should probably be. On the surface this seems totally fine, however, without the support of other social programs what good is a paycheck going to do?

    At the same time one has to realize that, even if they can crawl out of welfare, what jobs are they realistically going to get? It's all fine and nice to hear Mr. Obama say that he is going to give you a job, but what job could that be? If they fell into the pit of welfare it was probably for a reason. Sometimes it really is just a bad hand of cards, so to speak, but often it is a poisonous combination of poor to no education and some other damaging factor, like drugs or abuse.

    So you beat welfare, say, after five years, when it finally runs out and you get a job because you have to. I hope you like group cheers and saying "Welcome to Wal-Mart".

    We need more than money to repair our system.

  • Economic Recession Is Not Improving

    I believe governments shouldn't be so quick to remove welfare programs that did more good, than harm. I understand some people don't like welfare services or they don't feel they should have their tax dollars go to it, the cruel truth is that, not everyone gets a fair chance at life. Some people have to utilize these services at the darkest times, not everyone falls into the lap of luxury.

  • Yes, they should.

    When the country is going through a recession welfare services should be re-assessed. The needy people looking for hand outs need to have their benefits reduced significantly. It is the only way to end a recession. Less government spending in regards to welfare will help everyone stay afloat. It may also make the lazy bums get a job.

  • Welfare is Needed More Than Ever During Recession

    No, governments should not re-assess the need for welfare services during an economic recession. Recessions, in fact, are the times that public welfare services are needed the most. As more and more people become unemployed, it is the responsibility of the government to make sure those people remain fed and housed.

  • No. I do not believe the government should re-assess the need for welfare services during an economic recession.

    No. I do not believe the government should re-assess the need for welfare services during an economic recession, because during an economic recession is when welfare is needed the most. If the government stopped giving out welfare during a recession the crime rate would jump excessively, because people often resort to crime when they cant support themselves.

  • No that is dangerous

    There needs to be set guidelines for welfare no matter the state of the economy. To change them based on the state of the economy is going to put a lot of people at risk. Those who thought they would be able to get help may be denied all of a sudden and not able to make ends meet. We would be hanging people out to dry.

  • No they shouldn't

    How can you re-assess welfare when there are at least 150 people applying for every job available?
    How can you change benefits rules for those in work when a lot of them can't find full time work because few employers are offering full time work? How can you morally consider punishing the most vulnerable in society with benefit cuts given the current state of the cost of living and that only around 3% of claimants abuse the system? Really the Tories as usual hit the poorest in society first, we Saw it all before with Margret Thatcher and John Major!!!

  • The economic crisis was caused by greedy, incompetent investment bankers, why should the poor pay for their mistakes?

    Ordinary hardworking taxpayers have already bailed out banks in the US and Europe to the tune of trillions of dollars and have had to suffer cuts in public services and stagnated wages as a result.

    Meanwhile, the book-cooking crooks, venture capital villains, hedge fund felons, stock-broking spivs and financial fraudsters responsible for the economic mess we are in still infest the trading floors of Wall Street and the City of London, raking in money hand over fist and dodging taxes at every opportunity.

    So why punish the most vulnerable in society: people who, through no fault of their own, have to rely on meagre welfare payments to survive; for the greed and incompetence of grasping, corrupt bankers?

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.