Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Cons, would you still oppose welfare, housing subsidies, food stamps, Soc.Sec., if you were not paying for it?

What if gambling revenue, legalized dope, alchohol, ciggys, and legal red light districts paid for it?

16 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    As much as I hate to admit it, you've asked a good question. I don't expect that from liberals. You're unusual.

    In answer to your question, I would not oppose welfare, if I weren't paying for it.

  • 1 decade ago

    It's not the funding of the system that I oppose. It's what it encourages.

    If you don't work, you don't eat. It sucks, but it's fair. I wouldn't be opposed to a system that made people earn their checks. Like creating jobs for people who don't have enough money. They could build roads, bridges, schools, libraries, hospitals. Others could be hired to help maintain these things, instead of handing out checks to people who do not do anything for the system in return.

    Oh wait, we already have these things. They just don't have adequate funding or labor....

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes, I would still oppose it.

    Transforming the population into lazy parasites is bad enough.

    Financing it with vice (thus creating an incentive to promote vice) would make things even worse.

    Have you ever heard of Soddom and Gomorrah?

  • Loosid
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    Its called charity and that is the way it had always been done. People took care of people and the choice was still ours to make.

    Now, many of us give to charities on top of what the governement demands of us.

    Sidenote: Do you know that US Americans are (by far) the most generous peoples :)

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I would oppose it because it creates a society of dependents on the government and does not hold any incentives to provide for your self or your family like those of us who work do.~

  • 1 decade ago

    There still has to be a Constitutional basis for the government to spend money this way, whether it is from income tax or from sin tax.

    And why would people who oppose those activities want to encourage their proliferation in any manner?

    Source(s): So, Abdullah, you're saying you would deny equal protection for conservatives to use these services? If I had to guess, conservatives who use them use them as a stop-gap measure and not a way of life.
  • 1 decade ago

    YES, only the individual can make the decision to donate to a cause.Why do you insist on infringing on someone elses economic freedom.

    A better question, Would Libs be in favor of welfare if they DID have to pay for it?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I would absolutely still oppose it. Have you seen the people that come along with it? Just a bunch of gang members and drug addicts, most of the time.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    these programs start off by saying they help people but end up being the biggest garbage programs that people just take ad vantage of..

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes

    I am anti lazy people

    Work hard and provide for yourself or go live in a 3rd world country where nothing is expected of you

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.