The reason for this is quite simple, mentally and physically disabled citizens cannot work to earn a living. Everyone else is perfectly capable of providing for themselves and their family. Laziness is not an excuse of why you cannot provide for yourself or your family. Another benefit to this would be redirecting the tax money previously used to redistribute wealth, to paying off the large debt we currently owe.
I don't like to see people given money for just having a bunch of kids! It's a personal responsibility to have a child and these women (and I am a woman) abuse the system by having babies and they all end up on welfare. Put them to work - make them work at a child care facility - make them take drug tests. I think everyone on welfare of any kind should not be allowed to use it for drugs, and they do. I've seen it.
Too many people in this country contribute to the rampant abuse of the welfare system. Instead of actively trying to find work and provide a better future for their families, most welfare recipients do nothing but hang around and look forward to their next free payday that comes at the expense of hard-working, honest people.
If more jobs are created, then there will be less people dependent on welfare. There will be less people on welfare. The only people on welfare will either be people looking for work who need temporary handouts but eventually plan to get off of welfare, or people who are work-incapable. If there are only work-incapable people on welfare, then the amount of people dependent on government handouts will be a small percentage compared to the people who are capable of working. The people who work would be getting rewarded according to their work (capitalism), and in the process, the income tax taken out of workers’ paychecks goes to the work-incapable to provide income (socialist policy within a mixed government). A flourishing capitalist economy is easily able to fund a socialist policy that remains under the watchful eye of legislature, thus preventing socialism from taking over. America would be a country where if you work hard, you will be rewarded accordingly; if you are work-incapable, the government can easily afford to take care of you. A policy that is technically socialist by definition is funded easily by a flourishing capitalist economy. It would be much cheaper than the current welfare system, as only people who truly need it can apply. Then, we will have a truly mixed economy, and the best economy known to man.
Yes, we should limit welfare to disabled people only, because some people will not work if they can find a way not to. Giving welfare to anyone who asks for it also creates perverse incentives, whereas a woman will get more money by having more kids, not by making responsible choices, which means not having more children than she can afford.
If you are able to work, you shouldn't be on welfare. Able to work means you don't need benefits and can do what everyone else does. America wasn't founded on laziness nor slothfulness. The Founding Fathers didn't wait for King George III to give the colonies a handout. They took matters into their own hands and demanded their freedom.
In a way I say yes because disabled people CANNOT work so they cannot support themselves. HOWEVER if you work and you still can't afford food then yes get on food stamps. If you can work and you refuse to get a job then you should be allowed on food stamps for two years and then after that you need to go find work.
We should not limit welfare to disabled people only. This is because of the fact that many people who still should have welfare are not technically disabled. A good example of this is elderly people. Elderly people may not be "disabled", but should benefit from welfare as their lives have become more difficult with age.
Your question includes programs that no longer exist. There are several programs available, such as food stamps, rent assistance, and child care assistance; which target very narrow groups that need help with those particular areas. There is no welfare system left anymore, so it makes no sense to limit something that doesn't exist to only the disabled.
No we should not limit welfare to only disabled people. Although there are some people who use welfare to work the system and gain free money and food, many families who have jobs and are not disabled rely on this extra money in order to feed and shelter their children.
Some people say welfare payments are crippling the economy because the high taxes needed to meet the claimants financial needs retard both private and corporate investment. They also say that those with reduced mobility issues such as Prof. Steven Hawkins, or those with impaired vision such as singer Stevie Wonder, or those with profound mental health issues such as Manchester United’s Wayne Rooney, are living proof that having disabilities is no handicap to finding work,
These people further argue that even blind people without any musical talent could be put to work, for example: attaching spikes the ends of their white sticks so that they can pick up litter as they walk around the streets; or that people in wheelchairs could work in areas where there is restricted headroom such as sewers; and they point out that people with learning difficulties who can’t play soccer are already employed answering the phones at British Airways, even though they are complete and utter morons.
If someone can’t find work through, no fault of their own, whether it be due to physical or mental incapacity, or simply because there are no jobs to be had, then he/she deserves to receive welfare payments.
In this country we believe in helping those who are disadvantaged. In many lives there are times when the loss of employment or circumstances in a family require one to become unemployed to take care of a difficult situation in the family. When these types of situations occur society can provide a safety net for the family until such time as the situation is resolved. Monitoring of the situation needs to be required to prevent the abuses present in the current system.