Why I Don't Support Welfare

I have seen a lot of comments on here accusing conservatives who don't support social programs such as welfare of being racist, anti-poor, self-centered, and the like. As a conservative, I'd like to respond with my thoughts.

I am not a racist, I am not anti-poor, and I am not self-centered. I want others to succeed, and I want them to achieve their dreams.

It is simply not my job to provide for people unrelated to me, especially when they live a lifestyle I don't agree with.

For example: one of my relatives owns two houses. The first house is her family's home, and, until last summer, the second was a rental. Her renter was a welfare recipient and essentially relied solely on social checks to get by (i.e., did not work, ever).

Long story short, my relative was basically forced to kick out her renter last year due to several problems: the rent was not being paid consistently, the renter smoked in the house (which was against the contract), the renter refused to turn the air conditioning on because it was too expensive (which led to mold growing all over the walls and the appearance of bedbugs), and, because of lifestyle choices, the renter was declining in health. Her problems were only compounded when the housing authorities learned of the mold and bedbugs.

I do not have anything against the renter and wish them the best. However, I do not see why it is my duty to provide for someone who lives in such a manner that is not productive to society and causes problems for those around them.

Nobody is helping anyone by enabling someone to live like this. Helping is a completely different thing from enabling, and that is why I do not support welfare. If I truly wanted to help people, I'd volunteer at my local not-for-profit, which, coincidentally, I am going to do tomorrow afternoon.

 

Liberals don't seem to understand that my function on this Earth is not to provide for everyone else.

And if forced to provide for others, then I get to call the shots, since I'm paying for it. If I say Quonset Huts are good enough for HUD Section 8 pukes, then that's the way it should be.

 

Section 8 provides some pretty nice digs. Much nicer than the dilapidated Army Barracks I was housed in for 4 years. Of course we spent more time in bivouac tents than in the barracks. Field rations also left something to be desired.

 

And the sad thing is that so many people take advantage of our government programs that are meant to help people down on their luck for a temporary period. People who are losers, con artists, and generally worthless to society, will work the system and brag about it. The fact that someone else is working to make the money to feed and house them has no effect on them. Just think that if one person at a time was investigated and if found defrauding the government they were sentenced to life in prison. If we have to support them then they should have to live in a cell and eat bologna sandwiches. Soon the word would get out and the welfare rolls would shrink.

 

Welfare is a handicap, but not a means to an end. It has unfortunately, gotten a bad name from those who take advantage of the system. Welfare is simply there to help someone get through a period of time, where they cannot otherwise be financially independent.

 

We need a social safety net and everyone needs to pay into the system because a lot of people are just out for themselves and not out for the collective good.

It applies to both people abusing the system by making a career out of government handouts and people who want to keep their money for themselves. Ahhaha! Two sides of the same coin. Both abuses.

 

Welfare is a matter best left to the states and local communities not the federal government. Its not mentioned in section 8 so the 10th amendment takes effect

 

People should not be forced by the government to contribute for the collective good.

 

Yes they should...

"promote the general welfare", the preamble.

 

That's for the government, not people.

If I don't want to donate to some charity or that I don't want to help other people, do you think the government should be able to force me to?

 

That's just an argument to push the budget onto the states who can't pay for it, in the hope that it goes away, and meanwhile the federal taxes aren't going down even though they shifted the burden to the states.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't have to donate to a charity. You do have to pay your taxes.

 

I might have issues with some of the ways that my taxes are being used for.

 

You have to pay for both bombs and welfare. (and everything in between.)

 

I do, currently. Although I don't think this is how things should ideally be.

 

No its a matter of the federal government over stepping its power under the constitution. Show me where welfare is authorized in the constitution. Its not and for good reason

You dont pay taxes when you live on government checks

http://www.constitution.org/cons/crockett.htm

 

But when you need them, there will be services for you. Since you paid your taxes you deserve them, and should collect them if you ever find yourself eligible.

 

Welfare was added on over the years because poor people were suffering.

But I honestly don't know why you're complaining after welfare was reformed and can only be collected for a few years. I don't think the abuse you state is actually taking place. How can people live on welfare if they can only collect it for a few years?

 

Really? What about people with a disability?

 

There has always been welfare but not federal welfare. Its unconstitutional as is FEMA its not right to force states to pay for disasters in other states. If they want too help fine. Your not supposed to live on welfare for years, Who do you think knows or cares what you need more ? Your local church, county and state or the Feds ?

 

We should Reduce the unemployment rate and if we would experience so much job vacancy surplus then we should round them up and require them to work, they should be productive and contribute as well.

 

Well disability is the very definition of why we need welfare. Imagine you get hurt or sick and can't work anymore???

- - - Updated - - -

Just because it's not found in the constitution doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

 

I meant that do they also kick out people with a disability after a few years as well? Here in British Columbia, Canada, the disability assistance is pretty much life-long, unless one's condition clearly improved.

 

I think it might be worthwhile to mention that children don't get to choose their parents. A lot of welfare goes to feed, house, and give medical care to children.

In third world countries children beg on the street, get sick, and die.

 

I agree with you, however I also don't want to encourage mothers who refuse to work and just keep pumping out kids. And I know I am going to sound like a Nazi but seriously these children that are being squeezed out by these women very likely have problematic genetics too and they will possibly turn into future welfare leeches if not worse.

 

Regardless, they are not responsible for their situation, and something we all have in common is hunger, sickness, and a need for shelter.