If we cut back drastically on social programs, wouldn't?
917631
workfare is a great thing. If I have to work to make ends meet, then EVERY able bodied person should have to.
962857
No. Because we will also be reduced in the same proportion like everything else.
526906
No benfits at all for Americans. We lose many-programs will be cut.
687156
It would lead only to more division in the society.Our govt. should go back from britishers divide and rule policy.It will only do harm to our country.
204075
Social security is not insurance but a pay as you go system. The money we pay today is used to payout current recipients and to build a fund for payments in the future.\nThe truth is, Social security is alive and well. The problem is that the government is borrowing money from the fund it is building, Tthe fund now only contains iou's from the government.\nHowever you would save nothing if you quit paying social security. The governments need for money would not decrease, they would simply have to increase taxes and borrow the money from somewhere else. Smoke and mirrors, politicians want us to concentrate on social security rather than government over spending.\nIf we drop social security the cost will remain the same or higher but our increased expenset will not go into your account!
88821
What you're talking about is public works, which are not a bad idea really, but many (conservatives, mainly) see them as making the welfare problem worse.  The conservative's ideal solution would be to have the people on welfare working for private industry, not the government.  With public works you end up with additional staff, bureaucracy and taxation to pay for it than you do with just cutting a check, which means more bloated government, which is against the conservative doctrine of small government.  (Note this is the traditional definition of conservative.  Many Republicans (cough, Bush, cough) claim to be conservatives while at the same time massively increasing the size of the federal government and spending.)
460970
I think it would definitely help if people repaid the welfare system once they could afford to(voluntarily), what people should remember is that they're not paying it back to help the government, they're paying it back to help those in need who are now in a situation that they were once in themselves. I think that it's appalling that only men have to pay back welfare, in Australia it's a little more even.
539372
If social degeneracy* is gradually eliminated, it will be possible to gradually reduce the size of the FBI, State and Local Police Forces.\n\nYes, compared to the theoretically possible ideal, there are far too many people working for the government.  There are currently far too many functions where government overlaps, with federal, state and local involvement.\n\nIf these functions could be served by regional authorities rather than by city, county, state and federal, there would be incredible savings.\n\nThe States could further the savings by making all police forces a part of the State Police.  This would enable bettering monitoring of the police and crime statistics and immediate apportionment to pronlem areas, far better crime prevention and evidence control and standards.\n\nTo say nothing of the far greater efficiencies.\n\n*prostitution, assault, robbery, burglary, theft, shoplifting, bank robbery, murder, kidnaping, illegal drugs, &c.
744366
fiscal by light years... social issues are the ones no one can agree on and hardly ever change... and it's America... land of the free... do what you want, as long as it doesn't get in the way of someone else...
1156950
I agree with you that the latter option is the better. I believe that with less Government involvement by holding some Americans hands through their entire life you will bring up some responsibility to those Americans. I think the Welfare system should be used only as it was designed, as a temporary solution for families that are having problems.\n\nUnemployment is another problem that I also agree could be reduced by less government involvement.
9651
No.  It's entirely possible that there will still be a program called "Social Security," as names sometimes last longer than things, but over the next few decades technology is going to change so dramatically that very little of the current political and economic paradigm will be able to survive intact.  Social Security is already somewhat anachronistic (it assumes structurally, for instance, that a 65 year old is beyond their useful working life and near death) and as reality continues to change around it there is no question that it will have to be transformed in ways which leave it unrecognizable. <3
306250
No way!\nunless you have money to waste...but that could always be spent on better things...like helping people who are less fortunate.
341913
Certainly, it surely would be more effective that trickle down
517669
Good idea! Perhaps ot will encourage people to actually get out of welfare, instead of propagating so that they can collect more. Brilliant!\n\nPS: Will nip corruption in the system though, hence might not be feasible.
1176280
I don't think so, but it can be dramatically reduced.
201319
I would be drinking more vodka and less bourbon, beyond that I see little difference in our governments. We would still all live die and pay taxes. Life is hard in the United States for a poor person anyway. Lack of food, shelter, and health care is the norm. This is a shame for a country with so much wealth to let these things happen.
1039171
Why in the world would we liberals want to be a part of a welfare system that perpetuates poverty and dependency?  We are saying help those who can't help themselves, with schooling and health care and a host of dozens of other programs to improve the quality of life for many AMERICANS, you dumb ass.  We want to give them a hand up, not a hand out but you bastards keep cutting the programs.  These programs also EMPLOY many Americans so when you cut them you cut jobs, you ignorant prick.