Constitutional Obligation The government should support the poor because, without that, a huge chunk of the economy would go under. While the poor, yes, are poor, they still spend money, they still work, and ultimately, they still contribute to the economy. And if the government were to remove their help, those would not be able to function on their own, sufficiently. They could not support themselves and their families. They could not provide what they could to the economy as effectively as they could with government support.
In addition to this, the government has a constitutional obligation to help the poor. In the Preamble of the Constitution, it states that was must, "promote the general welfare" and "secure the blessings of liberty." The United States government must promote the general welfare and help out those who truly need it. They must also secure the blessings of liberty so that those less fortunate than most of the population may continue to thrive in our society.
Finally, yes, it is said that some people take advantage of the government funding. However, this number is not significant enough to warrant the deconstruction of a government program that helps more than it hurts. According to a 2002 study from the Department of Labor, "1.9% of total UI payments for that year, was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program." So clearly, if less than 2% is registered fraud, then it's not worth destroying a government program that helps a lot of people.
Inconsistencies The Mayan calendar never actually predicted that 2012 could be the end of the world. Religious texts and drawings are not factual evidence. There have been reports of the apocalypse throughout history, none of them - obviously - proving factual. Furthermore, the environmental factors can be attributed either to climate change or to natural changes in the way the world works. Overall, it's a bunch of occurrences people have lumped together and labeled "the apocalypse."
Basic human rights. I can't even begin to explain why religious arguments have no merit. Separation of church and state, that's all there is to it. Don't tell me freedom of religion holds any ground here; if you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. The simple fact of the matter is denying LGBT couples the right to marry is violating their rights as American citizens and establishing them as second-class. Civil unions aren't enough. Civil unions deny LGBT couples over 1,000 rights awarded to straight couples. Giving LGBT couples the right to marry would not only reinstitute the belief that America looks out for human rights, but also open channels for more legal adoptions to loving families, help prevent countless unnecessary teen suicides (I mean, come on), and open innumerable other doors for LGBT Americans. No brainer here.
Property Under property laws, faculty of the school have the right to submit students to locker searches; however, they do not have the right to search through a student's personal items, such as their backpack, I believe. A student's family owns that property, but if a student has anything out of the backpack and in the locker, the school has the right to search that.