The same argument over and over. Why force people to pay for others college education, healthcare, public housing, food stamps, public education, etc.... The answer as always, is it benefits the nation to have a more educated workforce, healthier population, people living in buildings instead of the gutters, children in school instead prostitution and stealing on the streets.
Really? Because we still do have those things going on in this country.
Would't it benefit society if I went to work every day to create tax money? So why don't the taxpayers buy me a new car every three years? Wouldn't it benefit my society if my home looked up kept? Then why doesn't government buy me flowers for my front yard every year? Wouldn't it benefit society if we were safe in our homes? Then why doesn't government buy us guns and home alarm systems? Wouldn't it benefit society to have people fit and trim? Then why doesn't government give us all a built-in swimming pool?
There are a lot of things that benefit society, but that doesn't mean taxpayers should pay for it.
Yes, these bad things are going on now but that does not mean it won't get a lot worse if families are left without food, shelter, and healthcare.
It seems like I've read a hundred of your posts that all say the same thing get a job. You simply fail to realize that most people on welfare have a job. It just pays so little they can't live off of it. You also prefer to ignore the fact that 6 million families on welfare are headed by a single mom, most with very limited job skills and almost no chance to increase their income. Then there is the 30% of those on welfare that are mentally or physically disabled.
However, I have to agree with you. If government assistance were cut off some would find work or add a second job but most would not because no one is going to hire them. They are in ever sense of the word redundant in the job market.
From what I've seen I would say most of them would take action to improve their lot in life.
It's like what happened in Maine with food stamps. The state set up very minimal requirements for those without dependents to stay on food stamps. The results? Most of them dropped out of the program. Seems they were not that hungry in the first place.
You people on the left have to give your fellow Americans more credit than that. I remember what happened in the 90's after welfare reform was passed. Between the time the law passed and it went into full gear, all we read about was the death and destruction that would take place; robberies galore, murder out of control, people killing each other in the streets because of hunger. Never happened. In fact, just the opposite results took place.
So I'm going to go through your little list and point out the cause:
People are working and not making enough money so they use welfare. Okay, how many of them are working over 50 hours a week? If you have those stats, I'd love to see them. Because us non-welfare workers work those kinds of hours or more, and that's why we're not on welfare.
6 million families are single-parent households. Okay, who's fault is that? Who is it that gave those people the idea that they can start a family and have as many kids as they want, and there won't be anything to worry about?
They have very little job skills or ability to increase their income. So what you're telling me is that these people with no skills went out and had children. How did they expect to support those children if even they knew they had no sellable skills or ability to increase their income?
30% of people on welfare are physically or mentally incapable of working. I find that hard to believe, but I'll take a look at any reliable links you might have for that.