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

  • Yes, millions of Americans are just lazy

    Welfare is only for people who have a disability and aren't able to work, many Americans make excuses on why they aren't able to work! Most people on welfare are perfectly capable of working, they're just being lazy! I think welfare should only go out to those with true disabilities. So many people nowadays come up with the most ridiculous excuses ever to avoid getting a job!

  • Get rid of them all

    The dependency they have on the tax payer is everlasting and should end to wake them up into reality and be self dependent. The welfare schemes can be spent on either reducing the government deficit or improving living standards via public goods. I would most like to see better technological advances.

  • Welfare program needs to be reformed or eliminated.

    Way too many people depend on government assistance, for housing, food, health insurance and even money. While the rest of us have to work for ALL those things. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! If you can't afford having children you shouldn't have them. But since this is America and the land of the free, you should be able to have as many children as you'd like IF AND WHEN YOU SUPPORT THEM WITH YOUR e OWN MONEY!!! Not off the sweat of everyone else that does work. Everything is so expensive nowadays but those on welfare get to grocery shop for free, reduced rent if not even free of cost, and free health insurance.. This is B&*% SH#@ !!!!!

  • Cut backs needed

    3 families around me live in the same kind of house I do but is paid for by housing assistance . I go to grocery store and their carts are fuller than mine with more expensive items. There heat is paid for. There health insurance is paid for. They do better than me with a post high school education making 19.00 an hour. We need to make food share like WICc program so much of the necessaties that's it. We need to make housing that is limited to an apartment heat included priced fixed for an average apartment not a luxury apartment duplex or house. Then the heating assistance can go to lower middle class that are barely making it. The health insurance should have limits and should require that people that use it not smoke, do drugs or it is taken away. I get an increase as a worker through my company and pay more if I smoke so should they. We should require 20 hours a week at some job within being on welfare after three months. I see people using food stamps at stores and there is an help wanted sign right there and they don't take application. Benifits should be a flat rate no extras for more children . I couldn't afford 4-5 children so I don't have them. We can't give more incentives for having more children.

  • 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.