Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands July 8th, 2012 12:00am

Should society provide for the basic needs of citizens who are unable to work?

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

07/17/12 9:54 am

If you're unable to work because you weigh 700 pounds, then society should pay for a gym membership and vegetables rather than your other needs.

ishady 86451132020
07/17/12 5:17 am

There are many disabled people that need help but I don't believe obesity is a disability.

07/15/12 9:21 pm

ADOG, governments role is to defend us not to tax the people that work hard to provide for those who don't. Surely you weren't serious?

07/15/12 5:13 pm

I totally agree with Mattie. need better vetting. We had an employee who would drink 3 two litters of regular soda a day. He had diabetes and was grossly overweight. He finally went out on medical leave and then tried to collect a check saying he was disabled and could not work.

07/15/12 8:34 am

Depends on your definition of unable, but yes.

07/15/12 6:24 am

There needs to be better vetting. If you want to see why, visit any city's SS office. It will be filled with healthy people and their babies trying to scam the system.

oldgrey1 Illinois
07/12/12 5:32 am

UNABLE to work versus UNWILLING to work. Why should I bust my a@@ to support someone who just decides he/she wants to be taken care of.

QPanda Blacklick, Ohio
07/11/12 5:26 pm

The real question here is, what does "society" mean. If it means the people as a whole via whatever means are practical, then yes. But if it specifically means government via tax money, then no. The government has no authority for that, at any level, and they do a poor job of it when they try.

07/11/12 9:04 am

@dylansi there was this guy named like adolf hitler who felt like that. You heard of him?

07/11/12 9:02 am

Churches are not an alternative. Not everyone is religious. I would NEVER accept church money, the church runs against my beliefs.

07/11/12 6:44 am

@ cowboy, if it's not the governments responsibility to take care of its people, then what is their job?

07/11/12 5:51 am

If not. Make abortion and suicide legal.

07/11/12 3:02 am

Getting aid for being unable to work is ok, but spending that aid on pleasures like booze, drugs, a smart phone, and apps, is another. Any "excess" a needy family gets should go to the next family that requires a taxpayers aid. The only exceptions should be for people whose taxes made aid possible.

07/11/12 2:52 am

Or what? Let them die?

07/11/12 12:17 am

Dylansl who are you to judge who deserves to live?

Someone who is unable to work should be taken care of. What's with the republican vote on this one? Wasn't it god's message to help the crippled? Jesus restored a man's sight/was with the lepers.
You people shame me. You give Christians a bad rap.

weallhave1 Tennessee
07/10/12 10:33 pm

Through the church. Not the government.

dylansl Texas
07/10/12 9:57 pm

As sad as it may be, if you don't contribute to society, you don't deserve to live. Humanity needs to move forward, I'm tires of it being stuck.

nFavOfSecess Texas
07/10/12 8:31 pm

We should feel a moral obligation to but should never be mandated to by law.

cowboy Doors of Perception
07/10/12 7:48 pm

Obama is giving lazy people cell phones. What is this country coming too?

TideGal CFL
07/10/12 7:14 pm

Unable, yes, but not unwilling. Those who live in public housing should not receive money for big screen tvs and satellite dishes,etc. As a taxpayer, I am tired of the freeloaders who want Obama bucks.

cowboy Doors of Perception
07/10/12 6:42 pm

@ADOG Where does it say that it's the Federal Government's responsibility to take care of anybody, in the Constitution?

melbart Texas
07/10/12 3:42 pm

@Adalla.... very well said! totally agree.

consaund Ohio
07/10/12 1:52 pm

But only for those who truly can't work. Not the ones who are ADD, bipolar, and any other ailment that can allow for work that fits the disability.

07/10/12 1:06 pm

Provide for those unable, but don't provide for the unwilling.

adalla Virginia
07/10/12 5:52 am

Society certainly should, but govt should be kept out of it by law. Politicians can't be trusted to limit giving away the taxpayers money to just the truly deserving. They've already gone way beyond the actual needy, plus they can't eliminate tens of billions of $$ in outright fraud.

07/10/12 1:48 am

The problem is that the definition of unable to work gets twisted into...

I can't work because I have children and I can't afford day care.

THAT is a frustratingly lame reason for sponging off the government. They are your children. You should do everything in your power to afford to raise them.

mrcoyote Casa Grande
07/09/12 11:59 pm

No welfare. Give em food water and shared housing. No soda or junkfood. Give em a reason to find a job.

leftocentr Oregon
07/09/12 11:36 pm

I wish Repubs would act on what this poll is saying. Oh wait, their greed just got in the way. Say one thing, do another.

07/09/12 10:09 pm

I think society in terms of INDIVIDUALS through CHARITY helping the LAME. Not GOVERNMENT through TAXES providing for the LAZY

trav Instagram, travisdover
07/09/12 9:11 pm

Do 24% of you think we should kill those who cannot work or find charity because that is essentially what you are asking for.

I would cut a lot of things before I cut that.

pjn0524 Pacific Northwest
07/09/12 9:09 pm

Depends a lot on the WHY they can't work. If it is because they are GENUINELY disabled, or need retraining, or if their job field is very hard to get a job in, then I think help is ok.

TallyLu80 Oklahoma
07/09/12 8:50 pm

I think a lot of people can't read... Or, let me say, they MISread the question. It says nothing about NOT wanting to work, it says they CAN'T work.
And yes, if someone can't work, their BASIC needs should be met.

nice_atheist Connecticut
07/09/12 6:08 pm

HarmieV- I'd laugh if you get cancer and can't pay your medical bills because you can't work.

joshg USS Battleship Alabama
07/09/12 5:44 pm

"Unable" is the key word. There are very few people who are unable to work. Most "choose" not to work because politician buy their votes with tax-payer's money.

07/09/12 5:30 pm

@ cowboy if they are unable to work, then they can't work, why shouldn't the government provide for those who just can't do, and yes I have heard of that saying.

gelina44 Springfield, MO
07/09/12 5:22 pm

That is what charities are for and the 76% of us who feel this way should each find a way to do just that if we are not all ready. We each need to take responsibility for what is right.

alekat93 Tennessee
07/09/12 11:35 am

@harmie I'm guessing your fav. scene in 300 was when they were throwing the unfit and retarded babies off the cliff.

07/09/12 11:15 am

If someone is physically and mentally able to work then that's what they need to do and stop being lazy. If they are unable to due to the same reasons and they have no immediate family that is alive to be the care takers then that person or persons should be taken care of by us.

07/09/12 11:01 am

Wow, 24% of you are truly cold, heartless individuals. You should be ashamed. Don't give me the "that's what charities are for" crap, there aren't enough and they can't help everyone

07/09/12 10:15 am

You should work for yourself and the gov should stay out of it. If they want basic needs they can work for it themselves isn't that what parents tell kids about their first car,insurance,and gas?

07/09/12 10:12 am

No I don't think so. If they choose not to work then they shouldn't be given free passes past "go" I mean do you want a leech in your wallet taking money from your hard work and not giving back to the community? That's kind of wrong. I'd understand if there were medical issues or it was
Short term.

cowboy Doors of Perception
07/09/12 10:07 am

@ADOG They shouldn't get it. But that how the politicians make people lazy and dependent on the government. "Necessity is the mother of invention" Ever heard saying? I doubt it.

Mr.logic California
07/09/12 10:02 am

@ HarmieV
How are those incapable of working holding us back? I don't think they influence government at all. You're blaming the wrong crowd here. And moving towards what?

DeathSheep Michigan
07/09/12 8:50 am

Unable to, yes. Unwilling or to lazy, no

HarmieV Connecticut
07/09/12 7:23 am

Absolutely not. Capitalism is the new food chain. Survival of the fittest. The bleeding hearts are only dragging human kind as a whole backward. Lay down the burden in order to move forward.

07/09/12 6:27 am

@ cowboy why shouldn't people who need assistance, get it? You obviously have little experience with the REAL world