Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
I believe there should be. 6 months tops. If you can't find a job in 6 months, then you aren't trying hard enough or you are being too picky.
Welfare is nothing but giving a lazy man reason to remain lazy. There is nothing in the Constitution that says our government has to babysit us from the cradle to the grave. If that is what you want or think you deserve, then you do not deserve the freedom the rest of us want.
In my not-so-humble opinion, there should not be a welfare system at all in this country as our many religious organizations are more than capable enough to handle those in need of a little assistance.
Yes, I believe there should be a time limit. I agree with what TheJared said above in that 6 months should be ample time to go out and find work, as long as you are diligently looking.
I also think that the people that administer this program should do a better job of it so that people don't go out and buy a brand new BMW while the rest of us that don't want to sponge off the taxpayers are fighting to keep ends meet.
Here are some links to some articles I wrote on my blog about welfare:
http://otterlimits.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-is-g…
http://otterlimits.blogspot.com/2009/08/welfare-s…
http://otterlimits.blogspot.com/2009/08/rights-of…
http://otterlimits.blogspot.com/2010/05/rose-by-s…
You purport to be a conservative, yet you advocate using my hard earned tax dollars to fund a lazy mans drug and drinking habits?
That is all a welfare state is doing. We should leave it up to the religious organizations to reach out to those who actually want a little helping hand up – not feed the disgusting habits of those who will live on handouts!
Huh?
Where do you get the idea that I advocate using tax dollars to pay for welfare?
Did you even bother reading any of those articles? And if you did, pleeease tell me where you get the idea that I am PRO welfare so I can clear that misrepresentation up right away!
Allow me to quote you . . . "Yes, I believe there should be a time limit. I agree with what TheJared said above in that 6 months should be ample time to go out and find work, as long as you are diligently looking.
I also think that the people that administer this program should do a better job of it so that people don't go out and buy a brand new BMW while the rest of us that don't want to sponge off the taxpayers are fighting to keep ends meet. "
Did you write that part about sponging off the taxpayers or not? Or maybe some leprechaun snuck in there and did it?
Negative income tax. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
Forget welfare.
So you oppose the current system which involves the extension of unemployment benefits I assume?
Since the system is already in place, it seems like, for the time-being, we'll all have to live with it. Hence, limit the amount of time one can reap benefits from it as a precursor to successively minimizing the program. That doesn't mean one is "for" the program. That just means one is "for" not dumping a bunch of people out on the street tomorrow.
Oh ok. I can see where the misunderstanding is. I apologize. I left a HUGE part out of my statement.
Basically, I believe that the welfare system should be abolished. There is no need for it. Before the welfare system came on the scene, private charities were doing just fine. Once welfare goes away, I think the private sector, i.e. non-profit organizations, can do a much better job.
However….since the rest of the country does not necessarily see eye to eye with that view, it is my opinion that the welfare system as it stands now, unfortunately, will never go away.
Soooooo….with that in mind, our best hope is to reform it.