Some of the more libertarian FReepers are against all such benefits, but I think it’s immoral to simply cut off people who have worked or contributed to their benefits. A military veteran is simply not the same as a welfare mom, and some on the right group them together in order to make a political argument. Over 50% receiving benefits sounds much worse than 20% or whatever on welfare. E
ven welfare moms shouldn’t simply be cut off if you ask me. These handouts need to go away over time so that people who are dependent on them can adapt. I know this isn’t a pure solution many want, but I think gradual reform leading to elimination of most of these programs is more moral. My fear is that the politicians will bankrupt the system before they’ll accomplish any reform.
I do know it’s absolutely wrong to not pay benefits that were actually earned or paid into by the recipients. That’s thievery.
Welfare reform was passed in the 90’s and signed into law by President Clinton. It limited lifetime benefits. I was there when it happened, teaching recipients how to look for work at the state unemployment office. Many of those women finally decided to go to work. BTW, we (taxpayers) had paid for many of them to attend college or trade schools and they “still couldn’t find a job” (in a city with 3% unemployment!) until the law came about. Then, miraculously, they found work. Mr. Obama rescinded those requirements.
I have been forking out money for Social Security for about 30 years... If I even make it to “retirement”... I don’t expect a single dime of this theft under color of law will be left... that is unless all these kids flooding the border are sent to the collieries to pick rocks out of coal for minimum wage and 15% of their wage is theived away from them to pay into this Ponzi scheme.
I guarantee anything that at some point the government will deem male homosexuals as inferior to heteros or turkeybaster clamlickers... only because they biologically can not produce “revenue sources”.