If Bush came out against federal welfare...

[tpahl]

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!!!

 

[krisy]

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!!!

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.

 

[tpahl]

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.

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

 

[tpahl]

So it looks like so far Bush would actually help his chances of being re-elected if he came out against bush.

 

[clumzgirl]

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.

 

[Moi]

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.

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.

 

[Merlin1047]

LOL - not hard to pick out TPAHL's vote.

:crutch:

 

[tpahl]

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.

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

 

[tpahl]

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.

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

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

So it looks like so far Bush would actually help his chances of being re-elected if he came out against bush.

That would be an interesting campaign strategy.

 

[tpahl]

That would be an interesting campaign strategy.

oops! anyways I guess i just assocaite welfare with bush and feel i can substitute the two words interchangeably!

Travis

 

[Merlin1047]

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

Social security was never intended to be a welfare program, it was intended to be an annuity. The main reasons that it has devolved into a welfare program are easy to pick out. One was that the Congress could not stand the fact that here was a huge amount of money (the Social Security Trust Fund) that they could not get their greedy mitts on. So during Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" they voted to transfer all that money into the general fund - where it promptly turned into pork. The second major decline in social security solvency is the fact that it has been modified to be a welfare program in the sense that many who have never paid in a single penny are allowed to draw social security.

Social security was not intended to be just another means of income redistribution. It was a means of establishing an old-age trust fund for everyone. It would have worked too, had government simply left it alone and allowed it to function as it's original sponsors intended.

 

[CSM]

Social security was never intended to be a welfare program, it was intended to be an annuity. The main reasons that it has devolved into a welfare program are easy to pick out. One was that the Congress could not stand the fact that here was a huge amount of money (the Social Security Trust Fund) that they could not get their greedy mitts on. So during Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" they voted to transfer all that money into the general fund - where it promptly turned into pork. The second major decline in social security solvency is the fact that it has been modified to be a welfare program in the sense that many who have never paid in a single penny are allowed to draw social security.

Social security was not intended to be just another means of income redistribution. It was a means of establishing an old-age trust fund for everyone. It would have worked too, had government simply left it alone and allowed it to function as it's original sponsors intended.

I agree. I also think that Social Security was originally intended to augment inadequate individual retirement plans. It really does irk me that people who never paid into it somehow are entitled to receiving benefits from it...that alone makes it a welfare program in my opinion.

 

[tpahl]

Social security was never intended to be a welfare program, it was intended to be an annuity. The main reasons that it has devolved into a welfare program are easy to pick out. One was that the Congress could not stand the fact that here was a huge amount of money (the Social Security Trust Fund) that they could not get their greedy mitts on. So during Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" they voted to transfer all that money into the general fund - where it promptly turned into pork. The second major decline in social security solvency is the fact that it has been modified to be a welfare program in the sense that many who have never paid in a single penny are allowed to draw social security.

Social security was not intended to be just another means of income redistribution. It was a means of establishing an old-age trust fund for everyone. It would have worked too, had government simply left it alone and allowed it to function as it's original sponsors intended.

Yeah like all other government programs it did not turn out as intended. same will be or already is true with campaign finance reform, no child left behind, PATRIOT act, etc...