Do you think that Gingrich and Clinton should have abolished welfare entirely? (NAFTA, employment)

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

There are some people that genuinely need welfare

And the reason why the Federal Government should take care of this is what...??

[Elliott_CA]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

And the reason why the Federal Government should take care of this is what...??

Providing for the "general welfare" appears twice in the Constitution.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

Providing for the "general welfare" appears twice in the Constitution.

General is not about the individual.


Government has no responsibility to sustain anyone, cradle to grave.

[Catgirl64]

Originally Posted by T-310

Yes. Hunger is a great motivator to work.

I have never wished ill on another person, but I really hope that just for one day, you are hungry and unable to feed yourself.

[redguitar77111]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

No. They should have devolved it to the states.

There's a reason why the Constitution forbids the Fed govt to hand taxpayer money to people who did nothing to earn it (one of the most violated parts of the Constitution).

Abolishing the federal welfare program wouldn't prevent the states from creating their own welfare programs.

[Chance and Change]

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

No, and Gingrich was just talking outta his ass as usual. He wouldn’t have abolished welfare if the abolition was handed to him on a silver platter. No Southern Republican would. It would end their political career. Too much of their constituency needs it.

True, but many Republicans want to pretend it is not true.

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by Elliott_CA

Providing for the "general welfare" appears twice in the Constitution.

A phrase referring in 1789 to programs that help everybody equally, not just isolated groups like the poor, or desert residents, or minorities etc.

Nice try. Liberals abuse that phrase regularly to try to pretend it allows the Fed to do anything that might "help people", which it certainly did not. It's their chief method of vote-buying.

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by redguitar77111

Abolishing the federal welfare program wouldn't prevent the states from creating their own welfare programs.

It would probably help them do that, by freeing up funds. As it is, the Fed is sucking up all available dollars for it, and states cannot compete.

[Roboteer]

I didn't vote in the poll, because as usual the question was badly phrased and the correct answer wasn't offered:

Q: Should Gingrich and Clinton have abolished Federal welfare?

* Yes, and allowed states to set up their own welfare programs.

[Howest2008]

Originally Posted by redguitar77111

There was talk about this during the Clinton-Gingrich era, but Clinton insisted that some parts of welfare continue. Do you wish that Clinton abolished welfare alltogether?

No I do not because placing a person in a state penitentiary is three times more expensive then giving them Aid.