welfare HAS worked for over ffifty years, it is a safety net for when people hit hard times and thats how it functions

the system IS broken, but because there is not an environment where people can successfully WORK themself through those hard times

it hardly can foster dependence because of TIME restraints in most places enacted over two decades ago

it doesnt undermine anything, it looks responsibly toward the reality of things happening to people unexpectedly that can cause setbacks and hardships

it is not unconstitutional, there is nothing in the constitution FORBIDDING It,,,,


it is not corrupt, although CORRUPT people figure out how to abuse it (as they do anything else)

it needs to be revised within the ECONOMY along with things like job creation and training/education,,,


The greatness of America is in how it treats its weakest members: the elderly, the infirm, the handicapped, the underprivileged, the unborn.
~Bill Federer




we need to factor in being DECENT by accepting that crap happens to people and that crap should never leave them without the BASICS for their family in a country that is supposed to be so 'great' and democratic,,,,


start truly standing up for AMERICANS, even the ones who hit hardships,, and not just the ones with some company's name on their paystub or inheritance/investment check,,,

Charity is a virtue and no matter how hard you try, you cannot turn it into an obligation.....Forcible transfer of posessions from peaceful, law abiding, hard working citizens to welfare recipients is the issue ...It is the issue because it is wrong....Welfare should be abolished.....

I disagree

compring hard work and law abiding with economic status is part of the philisophical down fall of our culture,,,


and the minute we begin to feel 'forced' because we contribute to a fund there for those times some of us in the community are unable to provide their basics

is the minute we can quit posturing as if we are some great civilization or democracy,,,

Stop the presses!

Welfare should not be abolished.
It is needed in order to provide aid for people who, due to circumstances beyond their control, cannot on their own acquire enough of the essentials of life.

Several thousand years ago in ancient Israel, people paid a welfare tax called the tithe.

“When you have finished paying all the tithe of your produce in the third year, which is the year of tithing, giving it to the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, so that they may eat within your towns and be filled, then you shall say before the LORD your God, ‘I have removed the sacred portion out of my house, and moreover, I have given it to the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow, according to all your commandment that you have commanded me. I have not transgressed any of your commandments, nor have I forgotten them.’” – Deuteronomy 26:12-13 (ESV)

In his commentary about the Tanak book of Deuteronomy, theologian David F. Payne describes why this welfare tax was mandated:

“In a mainly agricultural society, the loss by death of the man in the family would deprive it of its chief breadwinner, and the widow and the fatherless (mentioned in several verses) were usually in great poverty. The sojourner is bracketed with them; many foreigners who came to reside in Israel must have done so because of debts, injustice or oppression elsewhere, so they too were poor.”*

It is one thing to be opposed to welfare for those who can help themselves (the conservative perspective), but it is another thing to be opposed to welfare for those who cannot help themselves (the extreme libertarian perspective). The former is reasonable; the latter is heartless.

(*David F. Payne, Deuteronomy (Westminster Press: 1985), p. 136.)

Yep, and it was the "churches" who oversaw the distribution, NOT the govt.

In ancient Israel there were no churches as we know them, and there was no separation of religion and state because Israel was a theocracy. A portion of the tithe was given to the Levites, who were government employees.

One could argue that the government (in the USA at least) must be in the welfare business because churches do not use tithes in the way dictated by the Tanak. If you regularly attend church services, then how often have you heard a sermon that included a mention of Deuteronomy 26:12?

You are right, but Israel of old was the "christians", a cult, religious faction, therefore a "church" unto itself.

Rome levied taxes, had money lenders, had corrupt govt, grew thru war and conquest, and tried to run a vast empire with greedy politicians calling the shots....and they fell....

sound familiar?

Rome was great until Caesar showed up. At least the Senate had the guts to take him out.

The tithe dictated by the Tanak and the taxation imposed by the Roman Empire were separate things. The former provided for the needs of the poorest members of society; the latter did not (to the best of my knowledge).

In modern times, the government (in the USA at least) uses taxes (in part) to provide for the physical needs of people who are unable - due to circumstances beyond their control - to acquire those needs on their own. I have no objection to the government doing such a thing. Conservatives (in general) are not opposed to the government doing such a thing. However, the government (at a federal level at least) is not necessarily competent at doing such a thing, which is why government welfare programs (in the USA at least) are in need of reformation.

If the govt had stayed out of peoples lives and the free market people wouldn't need help, look for scams and loopholes, pray for lawsuits, rely on entitlements, or be afraid of their neighbors and leaving their homes.

Govt created most of the problems people now rely on them to fix, and if govt could fix anything, we wouldn't be in the mess they have created. The peoples enslavement to a private banking cartel and their IRS goon squads, a police state to keep EVERYONE in line (their line), unfinanced wars for profit of banks and corporations, a govt nobody trusts, politicians who lie while holding out their hands to the bankers, rigged elections to ensure their power is never diminished, loss of freedoms, loss of rights, poor education, monopolized utilities, monopolized healthcare, monopolized insurance companies, etc, etc, etc......

If govt could run ANYTHING effectively, we wouldn't be in this mess!

By the Constitution, their roll is to protect and serve....NOT RULE!

When in Rome do as the Romans do?...Problem is we're in America and we're talking about Americas welfare system, the pros and cons....
When I say our welfare system should be abolished, I say it for a reason...When Obama took office he systematically began reversing the welfare reform of 1996...Reform that was considered a success by both Republicans and Democrates......Reform that lifted millions of Americans from poverty...Obama's stimulus package essentially abolished welfare reform by subsidizing the expansion of welfare rolls...Your federal government now pays 80% of the cost for each new family a state adds to thier welfare rolls!!...This completely eliminates state incentive to put welfare recipients to work!...During the first year ( 2009) welfare rolls increased 5% and this was the first increase since 1996...Welfare encompasses more than just cash assistance...It also includes food stamps, housing, Medicaid...tons of programs involving many federal agencies...Obama is committed to expanding each and every one...
Obama abolished reform requiring recipients work after two years of collecting, he abolished the lifetime limit of five years on benefits, he abolished encouraging two parent families, he abolished beefing up enforcement of child support...Welfare reform was successful, it was working...Since 1996, caseloads dropped 70%, child poverty rates dropped, teen pregnancies decreased, child support collection increased.....Obama's welfare increases are not temporary...Over the next decade he will spend 10 trillion on welfare...So I say abolish welfare or get rid of Obama and bring back welfare reform...

Even worse these Welfare Receivers will get free healthcare. No reason to work hard and compete. Could you imagine Immigrants in the 1880's who came to this Country getting a free ride? I am very Liberal but I believe in an education, work ethic, and just doing something for society.

Obama abolished reform requiring recipients work after two years of collecting, he abolished the lifetime limit of five years on benefits, he abolished encouraging two parent families, he abolished beefing up enforcement of child support.


Where is this information from?,,,,
I ask, first because a President doesnt make laws, congress does

I ask, second, because having received it since he came in, there has been no such 'abolishment' of those qualifications that I know of

medicaid has always been a part of 'welfare' even in its prosperous years,,

this is not anything OBama specific either,,,

the reason to work hard is because there is a lifetime limit on what one can receive in assistance, and 'healthcare' doesnt feed ones children or put shelter or clothes on their backs

Since 1996, caseloads dropped 70%, child poverty rates dropped, teen pregnancies decreased, child support collection increased..


besides those things related to an ECONOMIC COLLAPSE (higher caseloads or poverty or collection of child support), what else has changed?

teen pregnancy is still at its lowest level in decades

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57411981-10391704/u.s-teen-pregnancy-rates-at-an-all-time-low-across-all-ethnicities/url]


http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/02/08/146573537/teen-pregnancies-decline-but-disparities-remain

Just like social security, the welfare program(s) are complicated...You advocate so strongly for them and for Obama, but I am beginning to see you only look at a small part of the whole..I see no reason why I should do the research for you ....My information comes from a variety of sources over the past 3 plus years!!!.....Start with Obama's $862 billion stimulus package......AND PS...This president does....Does collecting welfare make you an authority on the subject?

I think it makes me more AWARE of what the actual provisions and rules are than those who havent recently been on it or had it EXPLAINED to them by someone IN THE FIELD or signed paperwork having READ The federal requirements

YES,,,