That depends, would the guy wanting to get rid of the program, also want to reform welfare to what I think the program should be? If so I would vote for that candidate. If they wanted to just get rid of the program, without offering any alternative solutions I would vote for the person keeping the program. Even if I wasn't on food stamps, I don't plan to be on them when I move out.(It's my parents getting them, not me) Like I said, this program, is better than no program. It atleast gives them a chance to get back on their feet. Being homeless instantly makes it harder to get a job.First, I'll say not all vote Democrate soley because they are social program dependent - but I would say some do, just as some abuse the system and fraud is rampant. Democrats policies however do extend a bribe to those just hanging on to - just hang on longer. And when voting time comes along, vote for the guy or gal who will continue to allow you to hang on. If you had to choose between a Democrat who supports the extension (as is) of Food Stamps versus a Democrat who advocates the removal of the Food Stamp program, which would you (who use food stamps) vote for? Second, you set up a false choice in that without welfare people will starve and or become homeless. That's not necessarily true. If welfare was replaced, or phased out people would have to take care of each other or the welfare participants would be highly motivated to sign on to new programs created to increase their job skills instead of being paid to just stay on the cusp of homelessness. Some people actually have family as well, or could rely on Church or charity. Granted, those organization don't spend $400 billion dollars a year on Federal Welfare ... that's a lot of welfare. Third, not every Democrat is in your unique situation, so the implication that most people are like you is not true, therefore the implication is misleading.
And private charities, and churches do great work, and are helpful, but they can't possibly have the same reach, effectiveness, or reliability as government programs have.
Not every situation is ideal, but atleast with these programs, they will have a chance, being in a house, having food, and going to school. It won't prevent them from being affected, but it will lessen the impact, and give them a chance to live their own life.Children always pay for parents mistakes and no amount of social programs will change that. How are children who's parents use welfare money to create more children, or who use that money for drugs or alcohol avoid making their children suffer? They do not.
Like Mega said, what you see as some scheme to get votes, I see as idealism. I don't think Democrats are voting for these welfare programs to get votes, I just think they don't want to see people be homeless, and starving. I don't think anyone believes that someone should be on these programs forever. It's just a temporary crutch for people going through hard times.You have not addressed 30 years worth of dependence other than saying it IS dependence ... just enough to keep them from being homeless. THAT is the epitome of dependence. That is what Democrats want to keep going and that is what they've co-opted groups like the Black Caucus, NAACP and former Civil Rights leaders into buying into politically. That keeps these groups in power, that keeps Democrats in power through votes. In 25 years as an adult - all one has to do is look around and see this happening year after year. I just don't get why intelligent and moral Democrats ignore it - maybe they don't and that's why they become Independents.
Also you're assuming that people want to stay on these programs. It's not an easy life, and most people really want to get off of these programs. Though they may not have the opportunity too, which is why I support an education, and work program to go along with welfare. Though I'm sure some republicans would call that socialist.