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

Remove all ads!

I was going to comment on this as well, but Montressor beat me to it, and made his point more elequently than I likely would have made mine when he said:

That's exactly what I was thinking. If we had an exact count on who was chiselling the system, then presumably we'd also have the names of the people who were chiseling the system, and therefore the ability to stop said people from chiseling the system, thereby stopping them. I have no way of knowing how many people are chiselling the system that we don't know about, and neither does anyone else.

First, I will say that I think the vast majority of people on welfare really need the help and are not trying to cheat the system. And I think most people are painting with a broader brush. To me, and I think many like me, I don't view the polygamous family taking $20K a year welfare as any better than the people who are intentionally defrauding the system. Just because the polgamous family happens to be receiving the money LEGALLY doesn't really matter to me. What matters to me is that they (just like those defrauding the system) are using the system for a purpose other than what it was designed for.

Unforunately, I don't have any miraculous solution to this problem either. Legally, other than the first wife, all the other women are considered legally single, and single non-working mothers are entitled to welfare. That having been said, I think that they must represent a very small percent of total abuse in the system. And no, I don't have evidence to support this other than the rarity of polygamous marriages in the US. There are so few of them, that I cannot belive these people are primarily (or even significantly) responsible for the abuse in the system.

 

I am moved to quote Mark Twain: "There's lies, D*** lies, and statistics. Statistics can be massaged and presented in a way that backs up the initial tendencies and beliefs of the person doing the research. When I see a group presenting stats of any sort (even ones that agree with my beliefs) I always ask "what is their agenda?"

Certainly it is in the government's interest to present stats that show that welfare is NOT being defrauded on a widespread basis because stats that show that would make the government look bad and / or incompetant, not to mention thousands of cushy jobs filled by civil servants -- those civil servants NEED those poor people to justify their salaries!

I know that sounded crass, but while I do not advocate destroying all welfare, I do advocate tightening up the regulations and putting more effort into catching the chisellers so that the money can go where it's really needed.

 

True. But if you aren't arguing about the statistics (which, on their own, are just numbers, after all), then what are you arguing about? Statistics, in a case like this, are the closest thing to facts you can get. When there is an important decision to make, I, for one, would rather see a thoughtful debate about what the numbers mean than a theoretical debate about hypothetical "facts" that are completely unsupported by available evidence.

The debate is worthless if it isn't grounded in fact. When we don't use facts to make our decisions, we are in danger of doing silly things like, say, invading another country because we're just sure they have WMD despite the fact that all the available evidence at the time of invasion indicated that said country didn't actually have any. And we all know how that one turned out.....

 

Who needs data, I know of several people in my area that haven't had jobs in years, and live off of welfare, and just have another kid as soon as one leaves to draw some more money.

 

You do, do you?

Alright, I'm convinced; that's a sound basis for the formulation of national policy.

 

That didn't come out quite the way I meant it to AMaster =/ I was trying to refer to what someone above me said about statistics being able to support any cause. I didn't realize how asinine that sounded until I reread it


It's not just where I'm at....it's everywhere....I'm sure that everyone knows a couple people in their local area that just live off of welfare...I know its really bad in cities:Kansas City, MO, Springfield,MO and Washington,PA and Pittsburgh,PA all had pretty big problems with it when I was there.

I don't know about other places, but(to my shame) I know a couple local drug dealers that take money off of welfare and sell drugs and make a pretty steady living out of it. The only way I could see to possibly fix this would be to tax people according to what they buy.(houses,vehicles, etc.) but I can't really think of an effective way to do it. What I mean by that is that if someone has the money to buy a $400,000 house and a $60,000 vehicle, he/she should be taxed accordingly. Then again that would probably come back onto people who do things the right way, even worse than it would for those who do not.

[ July 17, 2007, 03:37: Message edited by: iLLusioN' ]

 

I would not be surprised, I am pretty sure it happens in any country. However, I would not say that this means the idea should be stamped out of practice just because its execution is not perfect. I can support programs to reform welfare, but I think it can do enough good to be worth having in some form.

 

@AMaster: Thank you.

Problems with welfare exist. We should be constantly attempting to rectify them. What I am suggesting is that, rather than grasping at unverifiable phantom problems which may or may not exist (and may or may not be common), we look at the ones that we actually know about and concentrate on fixing them. We simply can't base our national policy on anecdotal evidence.

 

Let's just put it logically, shall we?

We know some people abuse welfare, right? And we also know some people do NOT.

Ergo, we cannot say either a) ALL people abuse welfare, or b) ALL people don't abuse it.

Any statement as to 'most' or 'it is common that' cannot be verified, for EITHER the breakers or obeyers.

So, show of hands - who wants to throw out a system altogether that aids some people validly, but also has allows some people to exploit things, when either quantity of 'some people' is indefinite and may only be 5% or as much as 95%?

 

I agree with welfare...I just think they need to put a few more safeguards on it.

 

@Tal,

I'm curious about the YouTube clip. What is it? Is it a television show?

 

Quick question on the first one: Was it written by two different people? At one point it says that she had five kids before having seven more with the guy, and then at the end it says she only had four before having eight more with him.

 

Quite. Just figured I'd point it out before someone tried to take it as a "look, they made up this story!" thing.

 

@Tal,

I did watch it and it was quite horrifying/entertaining. However I wasn't able to quite figure out why it was made. I'm guessing it was a comedy skit for a television program as opposed to a political commentary. That is what I meant.

 

The first story reinforces my feelings about the whole problem with welfare. No one knew about it -- it wasn't on any radar screens until the story finally broke. What bothers me is the question of how many other people are out there like this, cruising under the radar, not showing up in any statistics, and bilking the rest of society? I think the problem is a lot bigger than what the massaged statistics say.

I'd also say that I have a problem with welfare on an ideological level beyond the practical level. The idea of "something for nothing" is not one that I agree with ideologically. In the short term, a helping hand is great, but we should be teaching people HOW to fish -- and expecting them to fish for themselves -- instead of just handing over our catch (to borrow a common image.)

 

That's why states also fund Job programs. Lets also not forget that it's more or less impossible to teach a man with no arms how to fish. There are some people* that are going to either be on welfare, become homeless, or lose their kids. Since foster care will actually cost society more than welfare, society needs to step up in these instances.

* Parents of small children who have been suddenly abandoned or bereaved are unlikely to be able to support their children on $8-10 an hour. Daycare is expensive. Maybe after a few promotions they will be able to support their kids without help, but not right away. Unfortunately, employers that are actually willing to work around a school schedule are exceedingly rare....especially when you don't have a college degree or any prior work experience to speak of, so daycare costs may persist even after the kids are school-age. And there's also summer to contend with....

 

The assumptions embedded in this are interesting.