Would you support a gradual phasing out of welfare?

Answer this question

  • Would you support a gradual phasing out of welfare?


Answer #1 | 10/02 2014 09:44
Not a chance, I am a gun toting right wing Christian hate monger but there are the disabled, mentally challenged, and those physically unable to work to whom we owe at very least, a bare subsistence.
Answer #2 | 10/02 2014 09:09
No. that would cause an increase in crime and jailing people costs much more than feeding them
Answer #3 | 10/02 2014 09:09
Yes the sooner the better.
Answer #4 | 10/02 2014 09:08
It depends on your definition of what welfare is? How about if we try to fix the systemic problems of why people end up relying on the welfare system to begin with and then we can see which of the numerous welfare programs can be eliminated.
Answer #5 | 10/02 2014 09:07
no-- freedom is your enemy-- supported people are FREE!!!
Answer #6 | 10/02 2014 09:06
Answer #7 | 10/02 2014 09:06
Of course, as does everyone who doesn't hate their own kids.
Answer #8 | 10/02 2014 09:11
Yes, for the most part. Check my book on Kindle, Objective:Freedom. It is a fiction story about how it actually happens.
Answer #9 | 10/02 2014 09:16
kind of looks like we'll all be phased out under this fraud. problem solved.
Answer #10 | 10/02 2014 09:03
ONLY for the able bodied. If they are disabled and unable to work, diasbility should still exist.
Answer #11 | 10/02 2014 10:27
Welfare was reformed in 1996 that was supposed to limit the length of welfare to 5 years over a lifetime as well as work requirements. That has been all undone with one statement from Obama.. Still, I don't see taking welfare away from people until they are employed. Pressure should be put on them to get training and get a jobs just like on unemployment unless there are reasons the person is unemployable.
Answer #12 | 10/02 2014 09:03
yep, along with food stamps and medicaid.
Answer #13 | 10/02 2014 09:04
What I would support is a time limit for those that are capable of working.
Answer #14 | 10/02 2014 09:18
No. Work to reduce fraud and waste? Of course. But what good is it to be the wealthiest country on earth if we are unwilling to take care of our own when they fall on hard times? We spent over a trillion dollars on an unnecessary war in Iraq and on rebuilding its infrastructure. Many on the right don't have a problem with that yet they push through cuts to food stamp and other programs, cuts that amount to about 1% of what was spend on Iraq. What's wrong with this picture?
Answer #15 | 10/02 2014 09:19
Sure. Bill Clinton reduced the welfare rolls by 58% and the economy roared.
Answer #16 | 10/02 2014 09:06
I guess. Welfare can't really be completely eliminated though, since there will be folks who are truly disabled and unable to work, especially disabled war vets. Plus -maybe- there will be issues of single parents (A deadbeat dad can't pay child support without a job. Or from prison). But slowly finding ways to eliminate welfare for the able bodied and otherwise uninhibited should be an active political concern. Not the opposite.

Possible answer