Many people believe that by attempting to provide too much social services to people, we've taken away their desire for more and created generations of people on the take. They then must continue to vote for more social services as the belief in their own selves has been diminished. Welfare for children (which I agree with) in many cases abdicates the responsiblity for men to take care of their children as there is the backstop of the US government to help parents of broken families. The breakdown of the family structure I believe is one of the biggest issues that creates poverty and lack of education. I think Welfare is needed, but not in the 'reward bad behavior' that we have today. Its great for democrats though as the more people on welfare, the more votes they get.
I think you underestimate how many Democrats would agree that welfare and other such social services need to be looked at and have major changes done. I for one would love to see the Republicans come out against this instead of attacking unions, social security, medicare, etc. Its the people out there living on the government tit and living off our taxes who we should be ralling against. Now some need and deserve assistance but as postal worker I deliver alot of those 1st of the month checks to families who are clearly milking the system. If there is one thing this country cannot afford anymore is supporting the lazy, unmotivated, uncaring, and deadbeat slugs out there. I just wish the war on the middle class would come to an end, and by that I mean quit attacking unions!! Unions and collective bargining are one of the big reasons the middle class has thrived over the last 2 decades.
You seriously believe that the fact that there is welfare causes "men" to "abdicate their responsibility" and walk away from their family? Are you serious? Do you have some facts to back that up? Thanks in advance. As for welfare being "great for democrats though as the more people on welfare, the more votes they get," Democrats, and I am a Democrat, and have been one for a few decades now, want to end welfare by making it unnecessary. How? By doing things like improving education, not slashing it by billions of dollars, as has happened here in Republican controlled Texas. By insuring that children are insured and get good healthcare, which is why they support national healthcare, as depending on the insurance companies and the states to provide good healthcare for children simply hasn't worked. It hasn't worked in the United States, where over 45 million people go without insurance. It certainly hasn't worked in Texas, which leads the nation, I believe, in the number of children that are uninsured. So, with all due respect, what you said was a crock.
Is this fourth grade social studies? Thanks for the dumbed down "poor people cost money" red herring. Yeah, the family ethic is breaking down because welfare endorses poverty. Give me a f**king break. Look around you. If you can't see the income disparity as an effect rather than a cause, now more than ever, then don't bother stretching your two-cent, elementary school ideas into 100 words to sound smarter. Social services didn't create income disparity and you know it. (-mc mark) This doesn't sound contradictory to you? There is a war on the middle class, yet the middle class has thrived since 1990? The middle class, is many things, but thriving it is not. Jesus, this is getting dumb.
Like I said ... there's no point in arguing with free-marketeers. They're just parroting the party line. The free-marketeer depends just as much on blind faith as the most militant Muslim fundamentalist. It's a different set of beliefs, but precisely the same dynamic. It's all faith.
Are you still holding on to the cadillac mom welfare myth? Most welfare recipients are the elderly. And most welfare is used for health care. Yes there are people that cheat the system, and more that abuse it, but they aren't the majority and I don't believe you punish everyone on it because of a minority percentage that cheat the system.
problem is, government is now financing the unions, via the bailouts, and other handouts to public sector unions, at the expense of the very middle class you purport to support.
the fallacy in your post is that "education" is necessarily improved by throwing additional money at the problem. there is no evidence to support this.
Given the falling test scores over the last couple of decades, I think it is plain to see that taking money OUT of education, as we have over that same time period, is having negative impacts.
Didn't you participate in a law suit against the NYC school system to provide more services to special needs students? What do you think pays for those services? Fairy dust?
Federal spending on education has increased and test scores haven't declined, they have stayed the same. Both parts of your statement are wrong.
