Quote:
Originally posted by Racerbvd
[B]Moneyguy1
That is correct, families took care of their own, NOT the Government. You made my point. People didn't live beyond their means, so why should we have to pay for those who chose to do so History was one of my strong subjects and since my grandmother was one of 13 kids, and the lived on an old plantation house in TN. I am informed, and from your own post, how can you call it social improvement ??? When my grandmother was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer, did we put her into a home, hell no, I took all the time off of work to be there for her up until the day she passed. What your statement tells me is that you aren't willing to make the sacrifices to help take care of your family, since you seem to think that it is a social improvement to have the government take care of your family
|
I am one who does not like welfare. That being said, times were different then.
It took a village to raise a child. The man either stayed around or the brother/father/family of the woman helped.
Today, there are an incredible amount of single mothers. If they're married, and if the husband leaves the family, the woman is more than likely thrown into instant proverty. Quite often, the woman has no family/community support.
The dynamics of the family are quite different now than they were 100 years ago.
Again I'm not a supporter of welfare, but this is perhaps an explanation of why there may be a greater need today.