I think almost everyone would agree that something must
be done about the welfare (they are not entitlements) in our country. Social Security and Medicare are 'entitlements',
since the participants have paid into the system for many years are entitled to the funds. And, while I understand and accept
the need to help those who are down on their luck or opportunities due to circumstances they can't control, assistance cannot
be endless. These issues are not without solution and any assistance should have limits. People
have choices to make in their lives, almost regardless of circumstance, and will have to accept the outcome of those choices.
For anyone who is physically and mentally able for employment, the benefits should have defined limits. Unfortunately,
the 'Socialist Act of 2009' has overturned many of the improvements made in the 1990's, and reinvigorated the welfare mentality!
For example, I had the opportunity to witness
some of this first hand with many, many evacuees from New Orleans moving to Houston from New Orleans due to the hurricane
Katrina situation. Almost all residents of our country have the ability to choose where we live. And, along with the
choice of where we choose to live involves understanding potential problems with the area. It could be tornados
in the midwest, snow storms in the mountains, forest fires in timberland areas, mud slides on rainy terraced areas, earthquakes,
floods in historic flood areas, hurricances on the gulf and east coast, etc. When someone chooses to live in one of
these areas with known dangers, you must purchase insurance to limit your losses. If you choose not to purchase that
insurance, it is not the responsibility of the US government, (read as the taxpayers of the country) to 'bail you out'.
Just for the Katrina example, and the same applies to many more cases, people moved to Houston, and elsewhere, and
expected the government to provide housing and money, while not focusing on getting back onto their feet, but some were
still demanding and getting these benefits some two years or more later. The same holds for residents in the New York
area after Sandy and Houston after Harvey. WHY? Had they purchased insurance, within 3 - 6 months they could have had
a new place to live, somewhere, with unemployment at 5% at that time, or 4% now, they could have found work, somewhere.
Choices eventually have outcomes. We all must live with our choices.
Other than short term disaster assistance, or a case
of military attack, meteor crash, etc. when insurance might not cover, it is not the business of the US government to pay
the routine expenses of citizens for choices those citizens have made in their lives.
Also, with the very large numbers of children being born
outside of wedlock in some of our communities (nearing 80% in some areas), the system seems to encourage the behavior by offering
more free benefits as mothers have more and more children. This has to change. The US government has responsibility
to try to provide an economic system in which our citizens can provide for themselves, but not to support them. Is
that a cold, heartless position? After someone has two children outside of wedlock and cannot support themselves and
those children they CHOOSE to have, is the rest of our society supposed to support them for the bad choices they make?
I emphatically say NO!
You decide! I think we should provide temporary assistance,
for maybe up to 6 months, then citizens are on their own. Before the 60's there was very little, if any, government
assistance of this type and the nation did pretty well. The Great Society had great intentions, but unfortunately, these good
intentions have created unbelievable 'unexpected consequences' (unless that devil LBJ planned on large scale citizen
dependency to assure long term votes for the Democratic party). We have to go back to a society that expects personal
decisions to have ramifications. Government can't support (read as: pay for) up to 50% of our citizens (and many illegal
immigrants) living expenses.
