Amazon.com Widgets

Should the government cut back on welfare benefits or should they be more generous?

Asked by: Debatingqueen33
  • Yes they should

    I think that the government should cut back on welfare benefit, so that it can motivate people to look for jobs, because most people on benefits say that the jobs that are available are not what they are looking for. Beggars can’t be choosers. I think by doing this, the unemployment rate would drop

  • Yes the Government Should

    The welfare system is way too large right now, and discourages work by the generous payments it gives out, and the way it is structured. If we were to cut welfare benefits, the government would save money through less welfare funding, and earn more money through income taxes since more people would be getting jobs via the discouragement of living off a super small pay-check

  • Too many people are comfortable on benefits

    Too many frauds and people who are happy to sit on job seekers allowance until a late age, people who in some cases get more money and a better standard of living than a hard working citizen which is unfair. Teenagers are getting pregnant with multiple children to reap the benefits of our haphazard welfare system. The whole welfare system needs a reform with the exception of disability benefits.

  • Cut back, reform and maybe eliminate

    Welfare payments are generated by tax dollars. So, essentially we are all paying the welfare recipients to stay home.
    I agree that in some circumstances welfare can encourage laziness in people. But, at the same time, there are other well meaning people just down on their luck.
    I think that more restrictions need to be put on the welfare program. The amount of time that you can be on it needs to be reduced. There needs to be a maximum # of months that you can receive welfare in your life to prevent people from getting a job long enough to qualify for it and then leaving their job.
    The entire system needs to be reformed so that those of us not on welfare can feel confident that those who are on welfare are truly in need.

  • Not just cut back, eliminate.

    Absolutely. The gov't needs to eliminate (not just cut back) on welfare benefits. By that I mean those means-tested programs like SNAP, Section 8, WIC, Medicaid etc and not SSI and Medicare.

    We should be teaching people to be responsible and not enable the irresponsible. They should not be given handouts for food, housing, electricity, phone etc at the expense of the taxpayers, whom already have to pay for their own food, housing, electricity, phone etc.

  • Separate non-monetized for all

    Everyone, not just the poor, should receive social benefits: basic housing (1-bedroom per person), basic food (2 cans of beans or 1 lb of meat, 1 loaf of bread or 5 cups of rice, 7 fruits, and 7 veggies, per week), medical, education, and pension. Ideally this would be provided through roughly 25 occupational-group guilds, but govt can provide as well (preferably at the lowest level possible, maybe counties). These social benefits would be single-payer through govt or guilds. As such, they negotiate the price with businesses and other guilds. Individuals would receive a card that would guarantee them a 1-bedroom apartment for example, not $400 which may or may not give them the ability to pay. It would not be monetized on the individual. An apartment is an apartment, whether its $400 or $1200. The cost (on the guild/govt) must take into account the location of where a person is working. If working for a company downtown, the basic housing allowance would be higher than someone living out in the country. If someone wants to buy a 4-bedroom house, kudos. He/she would just buy 3-bedroom equivalent (as the 1-bedroom would reduce the negotiated price). Another note, pensions would be defined benefit and not reliant on the stock market as 401k (defined contributions) are. Also defined contribution pensions don't provide til someone dies, only until it runs out, yet assisted suicide for the elderly is illegal (go figure). Defined benefit pension would pay until the retiree died.

  • American government, I don't know about. But for me, our government should not.

    Is it a great thing that a couple of people end up living off benefits? No, it's really frustrating. But it would be a death sentence to some if we did not offer them something. Money can run out fast, and getting a job could take a while. More likely than your unemployment rate going down is your homelessness rate going up, In fact, we'd likely have a fair bit of criminal activity, as people struggled to get the basic things they need in life.


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