and allowed however many thousands to struggle through life without government aid, or to do what we have done and now have millions of people who live their whole lives on welfare and have no desire to change?What would have been better for our nation as a whole? To never have imposed or encouraged a welfare state?We should have done with the CONSTITUTION states and that is leave it to the states. There is nothing wrong with California being a socialist state like Europe. However, it is illegal for the federal government to be involved in any social programs (10th Amendment). New York and Alabama have the right to do things differently. Too bad we have an evil tyranical dictatorship in D.C. that steals that right.
What would have been better for our nation as a whole? To never have imposed or encouraged a welfare state?
I love the sweet stink of far-right mythology.
What would have been better for our nation as a whole? To never have imposed or encouraged a welfare state?
Providing a safety net that provides the basic needs of food, clothing %26amp; shelter is probably something that the government should ensure. But politicians would never leave it at that.
This is proof that democracy cannot last because people will sooner or later figure out that they can vote themselves money out of the state treasury. That is what the welfare programs are doing.
Second option is the lesser of two evils. I think we can revamp welfare to get rid of the useless undeserving (and we should).
The greatest recipient of welfare, however, is business. Corporate welfare. From subsidies to the bailout (even Obama is guilty). Corporate welfare.
