If Bush came out against federal welfare...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by tpahl, Aug 26, 2004.

?

How would your opinion of Bush change if Bush came out against gov. welfare?

  1. I plan to vote for him, and would still vote for him if he opposed welfare.

    14 vote(s)
    77.8%
  2. I plan to vote for him, but would reconsider if he decided to cut welfare.

    1 vote(s)
    5.6%
  3. I don't plan to vote for him, but would consider voting for him if he opposed welfare.

    1 vote(s)
    5.6%
  4. I don't plan to vote for him, and would be less likely to if he opposed welfare.

    2 vote(s)
    11.1%
  1. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    In a different thread, it was suggested that if a presidential candidate came out and said that he beleived that welfare was not a legitamate job of the federal government and if elected would abolish government welfare, that the negative ads would hurt that candidates chances of being elected.

    I beleive that people that would be opposed to that are already not voting for bush and that if Bush were the candidate to make that moral stand, he would not be hurt on election day because of it.

    But II could be wrong... lets take a highly scientific internet poll!!!
     
  2. krisy
    Offline

    krisy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    1,919
    Thanks Received:
    112
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +112
    I think you are probably right. Funny thing is,the people that would be pissed at him for it,are the same people that are complaining about the deficit. I imagine it would save a loooot of money. The only thing is,there are people that legitimatly need welfare,but not in the same form we are thinking of it. I'm talking about blind people,or someone with a child that is disabled therefore they can't work. But if you cut out the welfare that isn't needed,I think we could still come out saving a lot of money. I agree that most people voting for Bush are not big on the idea on welfare anyway.
     
  3. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    Actually there are millions of people that are complaining about the deficit AND welfare. They are called libertarians.

    There are plenty of people that legitamately need welfare, not just the blind and disabled. In fact most the people that are getting it from the government now need it as well. What they also need is a little guilt trip. government welfare does not give them that. Taking welfare from a local community group, a neighbor, or a local church does give a person a good ol fashion guilt trip. People will take anonmous government money for their rest of their lives, but once they see their neighbors and freinds giving their hard earned money, they realize that milking the cahrity for all they can is wrong AND that the charity will not last long if they are not actively trying to get a job.

    Travis
     
  4. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    So it looks like so far Bush would actually help his chances of being re-elected if he came out against bush.
     
  5. clumzgirl
    Offline

    clumzgirl Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    223
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    ohio
    Ratings:
    +20
    I would support reducing welfare and government assistance, but cutting it altogether is too drastic. I think there are people who truly need it and do not abuse it.

    For instance, my grandmother is 83 years old and relies on her social security. She and my grandfather earned an honest living and worked very hard, but did not sock away much.
     
  6. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    Welfare and social security are two very different things. One is for retirement...something we wage earners have all paid for. Were it not for the government taking our money, we could have invested for our own future.

    What should stop is the use of social security for those who've not worked nor reached retirment age.
     
  7. Merlin1047
    Offline

    Merlin1047 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    3,500
    Thanks Received:
    449
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    AL
    Ratings:
    +450
    LOL - not hard to pick out TPAHL's vote.

    :crutch:
     
  8. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    elliminating government welfare does not mean you are elliminating welfare. It just means you are getting the government out of it. Also I bet your grandparents would have been able to save a little if they had not had the feds taken about 13% of everything they earned.

    Travis
     
  9. tpahl
    Offline

    tpahl Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    662
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Cascadia
    Ratings:
    +3
    Social Security is just another form of government welfare. It is simply welfare for the elderly and disabled. It like all government welfare takes money from one group and gives it to another.

    Travis
     
  10. Jimmyeatworld
    Offline

    Jimmyeatworld Silver Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,239
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    America
    Ratings:
    +223
    That would be an interesting campaign strategy.
     

Share This Page