It is getting harder and harder today for many people to get government assistance. So many have taken advantage of the assistance it in now becoming difficult for those who really need it. Who should get assistance? At what point do you think the free assistance such as housing, food stamps, welfare, etc. should be cut off. I personally feel that any one with a child under five with the financial needs, disabled persons, and elderly 55 and older should be the only ones to qualify for assistance. Other than that get a job. This way people that really need the help will be able to get it. I say people with children under five because once the child turns five they should be able to look for work while the child is in school. People are getting to comfortable with the free housing and everything else that comes with having a child. I understand that some need it but others are living at home and not working while the childs father is working and paying bills and living under the same roof that the government is paying the housing for and these kind of things are not being reported.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
i disagree. to a point,
MY grandmother was a RN on food stamps. you see my grandfather ran off and left her with four kids ages 6-13, she was raising them , paying the bills and going to school at the same time when he left. not everyone on food stamps just sits at home,and soaks up the benefits, there are actually people who truly need it. like my grandmother. and the government is actually more strict than you think, you can not get caught having people over for dinner, or giving away food at bake sales or anything because the government actually has people who will do surprise visits. they did it to my grandma when she was on food stamps, she said she offered the woman a glass of milk(because edicate requires you offer a guest a drink or something to eat) and got yelled at because the milk was bought with government food stamps.
The past is the past, you can not change it. So don't dwell in your mistakes, Pick up the pieces, and instead learn from your downfall.
Short answer: no. Longer, more complicated answer: there should be no government assistance in most cases, except in circumstances of extreme poverty and need.
My problem with welfare is pretty much the same as yours: it takes away the motivation to accept personal responsibility for yourself. Not that is makes people lazy, but why would any sane person, receiving checks in the mail, trouble themselves to look for a job or a raise? Welfare's become a huge government bureaucracy, and the politicians who support it will always be voted into office (what sane person on welfare would vote to have their checks taken away?) There are psychological and emotional issues with welfare programs as well.
Instead of welfare, we should be focusing on already existing charitable programs and encouraging them to expand. Families should also help members by extending their support. Welfare should only be applied in cases of physical disability or total destitution.
My dad's disabled, and on welfare, and while I love him dearly, it's totally pathetic. After I finally get out on my own and establish some sort of financial stability, he's moving in with me. Because that's my job, as his son, to take care of him, not the government. He won't even let my step mom get a better job (which she is quite capable and eager to do) because he doesn't want to lose his eligibility for welfare status.
I don't think you could be very specific about who needs government assistance and who doesn't. Every situation is different such as in chelsea.correa929's case. Yet it is true that some need it more than others. I think every case should be looked at on a scale of needs, using some kind of points system or some rational means to see who needs it more. But again, generalization, i don't think would work.
Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF). Conservatives successfully passed what is a terrible program, in my opinion. You've probably already heard of it.
I was talking to a very bright freshman at my school this year. He informed me that his mother and father made enough money to be slightly above the poverty line. Therefore, they weren't able to purchase medical insurance and I don't recall him mentioning he had access to any social programs. And yet, he told me he was conservative and didn't believe that it was important to extend the poverty line so the needs of his family would be ensured.
What a paradox, I've always thought. People voting against the interest of society, and themselves. Living slightly above the poverty line isn't much better than living below it.
Earth First: we'll destroy the other planets later.
I agree, thats why i think you can't be too specific with things like this.
But a friend of mine, who is considering crossing over to the dark side, explained to me that she is socially liberal, but fiscally conservative, so it she joins the Log Cabin Republicans, it will be to work for change from the inside, rather than working to change them by voting against them. It makes some sense, actually.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman