Is welfare really lazy?

In a debate on welfare it is common to hear the argument that welfare makes Americans lazy; why work when you can get money for free? When I was younger I agreed with this argument thinking a good majority of people on welfare were lazy. That was my opinion when my father was paying for my schooling, apartment, cell phone and more. Now I am married to a full time student with a child and I wonder, are people on welfare really lazy or are they smart?

Along with the end of my four-year college education, insurance ended, thus the dreadful insurance search began.  Never before looking at an insurance plan, I naively thought it would cost around 40 dollars a month. To my surprise, the cheapest plan out there was around 100 dollars. This plan only covered six visits to the doctors' office a year and it helped pay for prescriptions. It did not cover dental or eye care.  

With my limited budget, I realized there was no way we could afford even the most basic insurance plan. If I qualified for Medicaid I would get dental and eye care, prescriptions and as many doctor visits needed. With my seven dollar an hour job, 20 hours a week I figured I would qualify for Medicaid.

"Your too rich," the Medicaid agent replied as I handed him my application. My job made me too rich for Medicaid. I have been uninsured for about six months now.

Welfare, is it lazy or smart?

Food stamps sound like a dream when a monthly budget for food is between 150 and 200 dollars and prices rise and rise. With all the regular expenses, rent, gas, a baby, along with our small income, food stamps were sure to be given.

Once again, I make too much money for food stamps. This means if I quit my job a a checker at the local grocery store and stayed home with my baby, my food budget would double and I would be fully insured. Work and have no money, or quit, get on welfare and have more.

I'll leave it up to you.

Proposition Hate

I have been somewhat troubled by the approach of gay activists with regards to their protests against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). While surfing the Web I have come across pictures and articles on the issue and I feel that I need to speak up.

Freedom of speech is one of the many rights Americans enjoy. It is appropriate for Gay activist to protest and speak out for what they believe to be their right, just as it is for every American. But, if a group decides to protest someone or something they should know a little bit about whom or what they are protesting. I saw a picture online of a protester holding a poster that read, “Mormons can have ten wives, why can’t I have one” and then another one which read, “My two moms can beat up your ten wives.” These would be effective posters if LDS members could in fact have ten wives, but they can’t and they don’t. The LDS church ended the practice of polygamy in October of 1890. It is true that other churches practice polygamy, such as the Fundamentalist LDS church, but that is a different church and therefore the poster that the protester held is incorrect and ineffective. If protesters want to know the truth about the LDS church, or any other group, they should use credible sources, in this case www.lds.org.

Everyone should be free to choose which path to take. That is another blessing America gives to its citizens. The goal for gay activist is for homosexuals to gain self-fulfillment, but “it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment,” according to The Divine Institution of Marriage, www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom. If this were the case the government would have to condone anything that people claimed would bring fulfillment. This could mean legalized drugs and other such things.

Furthermore, it is not the purpose of the government to provide rights that will diminish current rights and privileges. If the vote had been no on proposition 8, than society as a whole would condone homosexual actions. While I, along with the LDS church, do not hate homosexuals, I disagree with their actions. What they are doing is not natural. Homosexuality goes against the very law of nature. I have never heard of or seen a homosexual panda. Besides showing love, the purpose for intercourse is to create life. Homosexuals cannot do this. It’s that simple, it is against the laws of nature. Condoning homosexuality would negatively affect society. Mandatory changes in school curriculum would take place. Elementary age children will be taught that any two adults can join in marriage and that the issue is morally neutral. Sex education will have to cover intimacy between homosexuals. This is an example of one of the ways in which giving out this specific right would diminish my rights as a parent and a citizen. Bellow is a video from You Tube called "Gay Agenda in Schools" that helps show this point.



At their protests, gay activists have been shouting, “two, four, six, eight, separate church and state.” Yet, if Homosexuality is accepted and it is taught in schools that homosexuality is morally correct, the matters of religion are back in schools and in fact back in the state. Teaching children what should be morally accepted is a religious matter and should be taught in the home, but if constitutions are changed this issue will be taught in schools.

Let me restate that I do not hate homosexuals, they are good people and they do deserve to be happy. But I do not agree with their actions and cannot condone them. I believe gay marriage would have a negative effect on society and by allowing gay marriage more rights would be taken away than would be given.