Welfare. (huh!) What is it good for? Absolutely...

Remove all ads!

...nothin', or somethin'?

New topic (as an offshoot of the Hillary Clinton topic in the AoLS) to weigh the pros and cons of the American welfare system. Why you love it, why you hate it, why it needs reform and how to fix it, why it's just dandy how it is, or why it needs to be done away with completely.

 

It is a disaster. I believe it was in the Jamestown colony where the governor (James Smith) uttered the famous words "who does not work does not eat". As a side note, this is no longer taught in 5th grade history. I guess it was deemed too insensitive.

Instead we have fostered generations of people who are perfectly happy to live off of the government's teat and they continue to vote to keep the milk flowing. It is a disgrace.

Public assistance should at best last six months.

 

Do you believe this of ALL welfare, or just in areas where the abuse is rife because of lax welfare enforcement?

 

Well I'd rather have people living off welfare than off prostitution or selling drugs. That said welfare should not be something that should be given just because you can't be bothered with work. It should work as an temporary solution for people before they manage to find employment. If you refuse work that's offered to you enough times the welfare should be cut. Leeches should not be tolerated. People who are unabled to work due to disability or sickness are of course an exception, they should be provided for.

Ideally welfare works as a temproary solution for those able to work until they manage to find employment and as a permanent solution for those unable to work. All this is of course easier said than done.

 

Part of the problem - at least here in the 'States - is that all three tend to go hand in hand for a large number of wellfare recipients. Not all, of course. But it's rarely an "either/or" situation here, and I suspect in much of the world as well. All three can, and do, mix well and often.

Personally I tend to agree with Snook. 6 months to a year is plenty of time, and I also think the recipient should be made to prove that they are actively searching for employment. By "required," I mean seriously enforced - as most state welfare agencies require such proof but don't really enforce it.

I think it's a wonderful thing for a government to help a man when he's down on his luck. It actually makes me proud to pay taxes. This was the original intent of welfare. The problem is it's become such an "entitlement" to some people that it's now rife with abuse and in the long run hurts those it means to help (fostering laziness and government dependence), along with the rest of us (by wasting tax dollars and generally being a drain on society).

My one fifth of a dime.

 

It may, perhaps, need reform......but I'd much rather that mothers of 4 with limited or no job experience (and obviously unable to command a substantial salary) who are left by their deadbeat husbands who are 8 months behind on their child support (or are simply bereaved) get government support in the form of assistance with food, housing, daycare, and job training until they are finally able to make enough money to support themselves than for them to become homeless because they can't afford the costs of food for 5, daycare, and rent (not to mention medical) at 8 bucks an hour. In the long run, supporting someone like this is going to be less expensive than leaving her to her own devices. When the family becomes homeless (or the woman resorts to prostitution out of desperation and is arrested for it), the kids will be taken away and, in all likelihood, become wards of the state (older children are rarely adopted). Taking away a single mother's children is going to cost the government a lot more money than helping her support her family.

Social programs often benefit the economy because job programs (in which most states require their welfare recipients to participate) tend to target the job skills most needed by local businesses. Welfare programs have also also been empirically proven to greatly reduce property crime.

 

Why do you say perhaps? Do you really think the system is ok the way it is?

I completely agree with your example of someone who SHOULD be helped by welfare, as that is as noble as it is economically beneficial. But the people who I had in mind when I said "6 months to a year" are adults, with or without kids, who have no intention of ever getting off welfare. Who have the "I need to get what's comin' to me" kind of mentality. People who are actively struggling to better their situation are not who I'm talking about as yes, they do deserve the assistance.

I wish I had some figures handy that gave a semi-accurate picture of the number of welfare leeches vs. those who really need it, if such data even exists. Maybe I'll try to dig some up later.

 

I was thinking exactly the same as Drew. For some people, welfare is, out of necessity, going to be long term. His example is just what I was thinking. If all the education you have is a high school diploma, and you have small kids to care after, chances are, even if you take a minimally paying job, it won't be sufficient for you to even pay the daycare expenses. So we really should add single mothers to the list of people (in addition to disabled and sick) who may be on welfare long term.

However, in the United States, I though that people who were disabled fell into an entirely different category than those on welfare. I have known a few people on "disability" and I thought that it came from an entirely seperate fund as welfare, and I also thought that it was the responsibility of the person's former employer to pay a good chunk of it.

Regarding welfare itself, it's kind of hard for me to form an opinion on it. I'm sure there are cases of abuse, but I am unaware of what percentage of people use it for the purpose it was intended, compared to those who abuse the system. Furthermore, I have no idea what it takes to even qualify for welfare. Do you have to be unemployed? (Note: I think it would be better to get people working, even if they still needed government assistance to make ends meet rather than it be an either/or situation. The single mom with a couple of kids can't provide for them on $8/hour, but she would require somewhat less assistance than not working at all.) Do you ahve to be below the poverty line? How much additional support do you get per child? What are the demographics of the people on welfare (i.e., what percentage of people on welfare are able-bodied and have no children?)

 

@DR: Stories of people like this, upon investigation, never turn out to be true. (Reagan used to tell a doozy about a woman in New York who was drawing welfare under 11 different names for months.....but it actually turned out to be a woman who tried to draw welfare under two names and was caught.) In order to qualify for welfare you have to be working, on unemployment (which requires you to provide proof that you are searching for work), on disability, or (and, perhaps, this needs to be changed) drawing child support/alimony.

They get paid SSI, but I don't know if that precludes them from receiving welfare or not.

 

While I am sure that there are plenty of dole bludgers around (and even know some personally...) - the low unemployment rate we have at the moment indicates that it isn't really a problem. I assume that most people would rather work in some way or form than sit around doing nothing and getting a pitiful amount of money for it.

 

Disability is part of Social Security.

A key issue is balancing compassion with enforcement. I've said it before; when the government gets involved common sense goes out the door. A large government agency just cannot use 'sound judgement' in these cases and instead relies on very rigid rules (using judgement would allow some bias). Rules that can be manipulated by those who know how. That's just the nature of the beast. You'll never get rid of the 'welfare leeches.'

To fix welfare there must be incentives to get off of welfare. In many cases there is a hard line that, once crossed, means an end to any and all aid. Instead of gradually reducing welfare and providing incentives for people to leave subsidized housing -- people are simply cut off and kicked out (this is a slight exaggeration, the aid does have a little leeway, but not enough).

 

Too true. I had a friend leave his job (for another job) because the $.50 pay raise they gave him was going to cost him and his family of 600 bucks a month (since he would no longer qualify for title 19 and his food stamp benefits were going to be reduced). There's something wrong with the system when a pay raise actually costs you money.

 

A huge incentive to get off welfare is when the money stops coming.

As to the mythical single women who has four kids and can't support them on $8/hour. That is why most states have Departments of Social Services. The DSS should come in, take the kids away, put them in foster homes, and voila the problem is solved. In addition, for most people this is a great incentive to not have kids that you can't afford, or to continue to have kids to keep the benefits coming.

I know it is harsh, and I know it is cruel, but everything in life isn't roses and chocolate. We as a nation, sooner or later are going to have to make some very hard and painful decisions that are going to hurt a lot of people in the lower end of the economic strata. The ones that survive wil be much stronger for it.

 

I think welfare programs are, at the core of it, a good and humane idea. Disabled pensions, single mother supports, and a few others are causes where I believe it is help people who would otherwise be living on the street - if at all - because of an unfortunate circumstance or because someone else took advantage of them. Of course, the problem is that every man-made system can be - and, historically, has been - abused. I fully understand that no one would like the money they pay through taxes be spent on ne'er-do-wells who peddle drugs, sex, or have just found a way to mooch off two cows at once. However, these are examples of why welfare may need to be reformed, not whether it should exist. Just because there are corrupt cops - and I dare say every country has some - should we abolish the police?

One of the issues here is that welfare can include a great many things - from student loans for low-income families through old-age pensions to unemployment benefits.

@TGS: As to the mythical single women who has four kids and can't support them on $8/hour. That is why most states have Departments of Social Services. The DSS should come in, take the kids away, put them in foster homes, and voila the problem is solved.

There are a few problems with that, and it would be a "cure worse than the disease" imo.
- first, raising the children. Having children of even 8 years raised by foster parents is not an easy thing on both sides. The single mother working her ass off might not be the best parent, but at least she can be a good example. Sure, sometimes it is a good solution, but far from every time afaik. The entire purpose of the thing is to make sure the kids are kept off the streets, crime and drugs as much as possible. I'd say in many cases the DSS or whatever it is called in the specific country will not make a much better choice than the parent does.
- Second, a large program - and there are a fair bit of low-income families or single parents - will be hard and costly to administer, even if you find enough foster families. I expect that you will not be able to, unless there are some financial incentives involved. In which case, you are better off with the biological parent raising the kids anyway, at least if poverty was the only reason you took them away. And if you meant foster homes that are being run by the state, a church, or any other organization, it will likely be more expensive and in nearly any way worse than even most single parents can provide.
- and third, imho if you work your hiney off and still can't get enough to raise your children, then there is a problem with the society as well. We are not talking welfare queens here, but people who work as hard as they can to make sure their families are okay. If helping them is called socialism, color me as red as a cherry.

[ July 12, 2007, 17:05: Message edited by: The Shaman ]

 

Sorry Snook -- I cannot disagree with you more. Your comments were callous and I would fight against any such changes to the system (I've never been on welfare, nor has anyone in my family).

If you're just trying to save money -- you failed. The money you just put into foster care exceeded the welfare money provided. Plus there are a number of studies that show kids in foster care are at much greater risk to be molested and killed than children living with their birth parents.

You need to come up with a better 'fix' than that.

 

I can't believe you just said that. Not only is it one of the cruelest and most inane things I've every seen someone say, it also completely ignores the fact that it is more expensive to put the kids in foster homes (because foster homes cost the state money, too) than it is to just help the mother raise her kids.

You know, time travel isn't possible. Sometimes, things happen (like bereavement or divorce) that turn kids you can afford into kids that you can't. The only way to make sure that you'll never have kids you can't afford is to never have kids.

Why is that exactly? You know, I always hear about those poor rich people who have to pay higher taxes on their income and how unfair it is.....but no one ever seems to point out that rich people and poor people are taxed at the exact same percentage (10%) on the first $7,825 they make, at the same percentage (15%) on the next $24,025 they make, at the exact same percentage (25%) on the next $45,250 they make.....get the picture? That poor rich guy in the 33% bracket making 200K per year doesn't actually pay 33% of his income to the government.

Because of the way graduated income tax works, he actually ends up paying 26%....and that's before he deducts his house, charitable contributions, etc, in order to drop himself into the 28% bracket (or even further).

 

Um... the calculation of unemployment rates isn't really all that simple. It's not just # unemployed divided by #unemployed + #employed. If we look at it in a little more detail, it probably doesn't look as low as you think. Of course, it also will be affected by what you consider "low".

There are two things here. First, a single mother who is not actively seeking employment, is not considered part of the workforce. It may be that she gets more from welfare than she could earn by working. To be considered unemployed, you must 1.) not have a job and 2.) be actively seeking a job.

The second problem is that the national unemployment figures are calculated based on the number of people receiving unemployment assistance. As has been noted previously, these run out after 6 months. So someone who has not found a job in the six month time frame, is no longer "counted" as unemployed, even though he/she still doesn't have a job.

This was very prevalent in Bush's first term. The unemployment rate seemed to be improving for a while, but in fact it wasn't. The problem was the number of people who dropped off the list after 6 months were giving an arificial "boost" to the unemployment percentage.

 

An excellent thread, DR! The crux of this problem comes down to how much government interference we want in our lives. Sometimes, a leg up is helpful, but at the same time if the government is gonna give you money they're gonna want to see it well spent, and that means they're going to want to get more involved in your personal business more than you would like.

As a taxpayer, when I see money going to people, I want to know that my tax dollars are actually going to do some good. Heaven knows I pay enough in taxes and am myself struggling to keep my head above water. The last thing I want is for that money to go to support the drug habits of some idiot who came up with a line of BS to get that government money, buy drugs, and then end up costing me MORE money when he ends up in publicly funded rehab.

There has to be a mechanism wherein people are held accountable for their decisions. Sure life throws people curveballs, but after a few years they should start taking responsibility for the decisions they've made since then and stop expecting the rest of society to support them. I've seen it before, I'm seeing it now with my students. They are immigrants to Canada and most are trying to pick up enough English to get jobs, but a good chunk of them seem to think that Canadians have nothing better to do than support them while they skip class and criticize us for not being generous enough. Nobody forced them to come here, and they should bloody well stop looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Not that I EVER get frustrated with these people!

 

TGS,
in Germany they sent lazy buggers to educational camps where they were taught the values of leadership and discipline, order and work ethos. My crazy uncles always said: That was a government program that worked! And indeed, that sure taught them, for the greater good of the Volksgemeinschaft, or some such. As inexplicable as abrupt such programs stopped in 1945.

Lazy wenches need to get some shock therapy to get up their obese assess! After all, not being rich is no excuse to having no money. Not to mention that it will do the kid's psyches nothing but good; they won't get spoiled sissies that way. Getting their kids taken away will finally motivate those mythical single women with four kids! Ladies, you got kids to take care of, work faster, work harder! Then, only then, you may see your child again - maybe even before we draft it into the army. Brilliant plan. Your own idea?
Sarcasm aside, I think what you wrote is likely the most scornworthy I heard in a while. You must be out of your mind.

 

Well than I feel I accomplished something today

Seriously, the point isn't to increase the number of kids in foster care and it certainly wasn't to take kids away from working mothers. The point is it would be a damn effective way of convincing people they cannot expect the government to take care of them and their families forever.

Here is another solution, if you aren't off of the welfare rolls in six months, you are drafted into the armed forces. Let the Army teach them a skill. Of course the Army probably doesn't want people who aren't motivated enough to find a job on their own, so that is a big hurdle.

My point is, we have been teaching generations of poor people to remain poor. How many people here would stay where they live, if they couldn't find work, and for how long? I'm going to guess that most of the people here (myself included) would pack up and go to where the work is. So what does welfare accomplish? It enables poor people to sit in their welfare provided apartment in the ghettos of the inner city and wait for the 1st of the month when they can get another kiss from the government. Then they raise their children in substandard schools and kids learn a lot by example. If mom and dad don't work, why should I?

The thread asked what should we do about it. I admit I'm being mean, but I don't see any way to make effective welfare reform without causing a lot of pain and heartbreak. Probably the smartest thing to do, would be to throw the people onto busses and drop them off in communities that need workers. Continuing to wring our hands about it, while mailing out checks is typical government BS.

EDIT: I also blame the legions of social workers who instead of teaching people to support themselves, instead spend there time helping people fill out the forms to get the benefits.

[ July 12, 2007, 21:38: Message edited by: The Great Snook ]