Question:
opinions on why welfare should be removed?
i ♥::♫dk baby♫::♥
2010-05-09 16:55:52 UTC
I have this project for my government class and I need to know some peoples opinions on why welfare should be removed. i was assigned to this side >.>
quick answers plz and thanks a lot.
Four answers:
Jenny
2010-05-09 20:37:36 UTC
The preamble to the US Constitution states: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.



The preamble clearly defines the two major functions of government: (1) ensuring justice, personal freedom, and a free society where individuals are protected from domestic lawbreakers and criminals, and; (2) protecting the people of the United States from foreign aggressors.



When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”



James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”



John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, once observed: “Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.”



It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)





The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence. If a federally funded project is not supported by all the people, not accessible to all the people, and does not benefit the general population, then the program is unconstitutional.
Morningstar
2010-05-09 18:13:58 UTC
Welfare needs to be available to assist people who have lost their income due to something over which they had no control such as illness. Short term help is reasonable, life long help is another subject. We have fostered up to the fourth generation of welfare recipients in ONE family! Surely somebody in such families could have finished high school, applied for some kind of training, found a job of some kind. In this respect, the government has made that part of society weak, and dangerous. People with too much time on their hands are bored and unmotivated.So, I think welfare recipients should have to work in some public service, participate in job related training, and/or present proof of a job search on a set schedule. It is to their advantage to have the motivation to produce results.No free ride. And the ride ends after three years of welfare, for life. No Katrina "victims" who think they have jumped on the gravy train for life.They had no plans for their own support before the winds ever blew. Look around at what most people did after the storm. They did whatever was necessary to start from scratch. Just like the folks in Nashville are doing right now. For those who are truly disabled by age or illness, injury, mental status, etc. that individual should be reevaluated on a periodic basis. I realize the social services department need needs may more staff that it has to be able to achieve this.Sometimes people need help. Welfare needs to be available.
2010-05-09 17:07:04 UTC
Welfare should be available in the short term for people who experience financial disasters not of their own making. The recipients should have to either work, look for work or be in some kind of job training. Every state should have the same level of benefit commensurate to its cost of living so that states like California with its extremely generous pay outs don't become magnets for every poor person in the country.
ceseme
2015-05-07 20:27:29 UTC
If people would help each other out, welfare would be unnecessary. Take care of those in your neighborhoods who are in need.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...