Welfare reform

If you light a man a fire he'll be warm for a night, if you light a man on fire than he'll be warm for the rest of his life
Seriously though, there are way to many dole bludgers and too many people who don't get a job so that they don't have to pay for various things.

 

Welfare doesn't cost us that much. I'd rather see it managed by churches and charities rather than put in the overpaid hands of government bureacrats, but all in all I think it's preferable to the alternative. Teaching to fish is great in principle, but if you look at the history of such attempts, they have pretty much all been expensive and miserable failures. Some people just won't fish no matter how much time and money you spend teaching them. Charles Murray's Losing Ground (which had the magnificent working title of "Screwing the poor in the missionary position") provides an excellent analysis of social programs over the last 50 years, and demonstrates that they've actually made the situation worse. Frankly, it's cheaper and more effective to give handouts and hope the kids will be better citizens than their parents were. Not an unlikely hope, either - my mother and husband both grew up in large poor families on welfare, and they are both law-abiding and happy taxpayers today.

The one reform I would make would be to give food and pay rent directly instead of giving money. If people are good at managing money and the household budget, they are unlikely to have ended up on welfare in the first place. You'd like to think people would buy food for their kids *before* buying the beer, but it's not always the case.

I'm not sure I blame unskilled people who prefer welfare to honest work, either. Tried making ends meet on minimum wage lately? Journalist Barbara Ehrenreich has, and it's a very scary tale.

http://www.henryholt.com/holt/nickelanddimed.htm

 

I have a feeling that Mathetais will have something to say on this question.

In all sincerity, can someone explain to me how being married helps to break the cycle of poverty? If there's a truly loving, nuturing relationship I can see the possibilities, but I really think the far greater probability is for dead, abusive realtionships to linger for the sake of getting a fatter check.

So what is Dubya seeing that I'm not?

 

I may come back later to talk about welfare once I collect my thoughts but I'm just chiming in here to say that I DESPISED the book "Nickled and Dimed" by Barbara Ehrenreich and I know a lot of people who have. My girlfriend grew up homeless for a few years and got so mad reading that book she couldn't finish. While Ms. Ehrenreich's goal might have been laudable she is completely inept at what she tried to do. She never tries to get a roomate, or shop for thrifty goods etc. At the same time, the insulting part, is that she, probably unconsciously, speaks in very demeaning ways about the working class people that she is around. The come across as chattel. The scene where she is talking about the cook in the back of a restaurant she is at is a prime example along with the way she demeans those working at Wal-Mart.

I could suggest the book in the sense that it is something a lot of people, particularly academia, have read so you can see what they're talking about. However, if you're like me and a lot of other people I know you'll probably not find it all that helpful.

 

The personal qualities of the author aside, I think that you have put the nail on the head by saying her attempts to live on minimum wage are "inept". That's true of a lot of people on welfare or working in minimum wage jobs. It takes real skill to live on a low income, which is one of the points her book brings out, and a factor people touting the "get a job" line often neglect. If people don't have those life skills, should their kids starve? Or be left alone while their mother works 16 hours a day trying to make ends meet? Because that's what we're talking about if you want to abolish welfare. And I don't think hungry, neglected children are going to turn into the kind of adults we want in our society, do you?

I volunteered, briefly, in a food bank and the local farmers would bring huge sacks of potatoes, cabbage, dry milk etc to donate. I was a student at the time and this is pretty much all I ever ate. But the clients of the food bank consistently refused to take them because they didn't know how to cook them and weren't willing to learn. They wanted the much more expensive Tuna Helper and tins of tuna instead, and foods like Kraft Macaroni and Cheese Dinner. They also wanted disposable diapers instead of cloth, and they all seemed to use formula instead of breastfeeding. And then they would be angry at the paucity of what the food bank could provide because they were having trouble making ends meet. I wanted to scream. But on the other hand, how did we as a society let so many people make it to adulthood without learning the most basic skills for feeding themselves and their families? Re-instating Home Economics as a mandatory subject for all high school students (male or female) would be an excellent start. Parents are obviously neglecting to teach such essential life skills.

I'm being long-winded again, but my point is, if you are going to get rid of welfare you need to find an alternative. So far we haven't found one that works. So, for those of you that think we should stop providing handouts to parents unwilling or unable to work, please suggest a better solution as I'm sure everyone would like to find one.

 

OK, this is my current situation.
I'm unemployed and claiming benefits. Being unemployed does my head in and I usually scramble off them ASAP. This time I decided to do a course through the job centre, and recieve their support for it. Now this is great as I'm working towards a good qualification (even if i could do it before, just didn't have the paper that said so.). Now if I go out and get full time work, or say I had before I started full time work before this course, I would be on £30 apprx. less a fortnight, and out of that less money, have to pay more out, a lot more. What would you do in this situation boys and girls, bearing in mind, you have 2 other mouths to keep fed?

Also, before I get flamed so much I spontaineously combust, I should point out, that I am training so I don't have to get a job with that sort of wage, and when living with a lass who didn't want to work, and was happy being on the dole I was amazed and very annoyed she could do that as I was the one basically supporting both of us and it was a bloody hard time. How people can do it I can see, they are worse off working as there is no support when working in too many situations, I happen to prefer working, but I ned a good job now as there's those extra mouths.

 

I think it is pretty sad to see the very negative image that exist of poor people on this board. Saying that all welfare does is to allow all the lazy bastards to sit around doing nothing and get payed for it (for everyone that is poor is lazy and it is his own fault, everyone appear to know that). Well if that is the case we should close down all hospitals because come on, havent you seen all the hypocondrites that go all the time and use up time and resources for no gain? So lets scrap health care its just a tool for the hypocondrics to abuse the system.
Heck the best thing would be that if you arent successful and able to support yourself by an adult age we might as well just kill you off? I mean you are just a lazy drain on society that will never amount to anything so instead of giving out free money so you can watch Oprah we would do you a favour if we killed you.

A nation need welfare, and just as with all system there will be people taking advantage of it but they are a tiny minority. A vast amount of people prefer to work for their living, I would think especially so in states such as the US with a great social stigma on being wellfare and the humiliation that goes with it. As has been shown by that book no matter it faults shows that in many countries it doesnt even matter if you work, you are still poor and in need of govermental help. Churches and aidorganisations may be good for emergencies but they do nothing to help with the real problem, they may be needed to treat some of the most lethal symptoms but do nothing to cure the disease. A proper wellfare system helps to lift people out of the misery and gives them an oppurtunity to get out of the poverty trap. It also makes it possible for people to try and fail without ending up on the street. If the price to pay is some bastards taking advantage of the system I dont think it is too much and even if all they do is to live by wellfare and be satisfied with it it isnt very gratifying lives they live. It isnt any fortunes that are handed out to the poor in any country.

 

I don't think welfare should be abolished, it certainly has its purposes. We all pay into it, and it is comforting to know that should something happen to us whereby we are unable to work, there is a safety net to help break that fall.

At the same time, however, there needs to be some regulation on who is eligible and/or for how long. Someone who loses their job should be entitled to some benefits, someone who loses their hand should be entitled to more. It is those people who choose not to work that are the real culprits here.

I am not familiar with the American welfare system, but here in Canada it is essentially possible to collect welfare for your entire life. Sure, they have job training and placement services and they encourage people to actively seek work, but there is no penalty (actually, I think there is but it is not strictly enforced) for those who do not avail themselves of these services.

This seems to me to be what needs changing. Welfare is a humanitarian system to help those in need, not to help those too lazy to help themselves. Perhaps the government should impose some sort of time limit on how long one can collect welfare with provisions made for those who cannot work and for those studying/training to find work later. This way we can provide for those who truly need it, for those it was designed for in the first place, and start weeding out the freeloaders.

 

Joacqin, nobody in this thread has said anything like that! Every single person who's posted has said they are comfortable with a welfare system that helps people who are going through tough times, and the objection that some posters have is to allowing some people to spend their entire lives on welfare.

I'd be interested in hearing you expand on why you think the government is more efficient than aid organisations, because my experience is that aid organisations usually spend less money and achieve better results. Please share your own experiences with us.

 

I remember the part with that woman from Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" - sacrificing almost all her time working on two low loan jobs to feed her kid - and having no time to really care for it. Replacing one job with welfare support could be a useful contribution to stabilise society - since she would be able to spend more time with her children.
Parents are better in educating a kid than a penitentiary, and cheaper too. Just a thought.

Another aspect of welfare is health - a system where having cancer, necessiating an expensive medical therapy, could be ruin results in the poor dieing and suffering where the wealthy can afford expensive treatment. Unsatisfying IMO.

[ December 16, 2002, 08:54: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I didnt say that anyone had sait those things Sprite and therefore I didnt use any names, but I have gotten the impression during the years that many people on this board and for that sake in the world has that view on people.

I stated the main reason that aid organisations shouldnt be the main source of help above, they treat symtons and emergencies instead of diminishing poverty they enable some poor people to get through the day.
But my main objection towards charity and aid organisations is that it is degrading to the ones being forced to take their help, with a state sanctioned welfare system it is just that, a system and the people are entitled to the help the need when they need it and not on the mercy of some charity organisations judgment.
I also dont think that no matter what so can charity and aid organisations fill up any need, not in the long run they are too small. The only organisation that can really help people on a grand scale is one that can use the resources of all the people in the nation without begging for it, ie the state. Aid and charity organisatios would be forced to select which ones to help while state sanctioned wellfare has a norm that says if you are in this and this situation and have this amount of money you are eligible for wellfare or other state sanctioned handouts.

 

LOL Rallymamma .. I was going to hold off, but now I'll chime in.

Welfare is necessary, to an extent. People hit hard times and need help. If private charities cannot fill the need (I think they could if taxes were lowered, but that's another thread) then the government can and should step in.

Unfortunately the current welfare system needs reform. In many cases, it serves to perpetuate a welfare state, creating an underclass of people who learn how to manipulate the system. I live in a very poor neighborhood (ever heard of Cabrini Green) and see this first hand.

Two illustrations from my life to show the abuses that need to be fixed....

#1 A few years back I was a struggling pastor making $20K a year, putting my wife through school (she didn't get financial aid) and paying all the bills. I was in line at the grocery store with all my budget would allow ... pasta, tuna, milk, just the staples. In front of me was a very over-weight family dressed in nice leather FUBU jackets, top line shoes, etc with two shopping carts full of Doretoes, ice cream, Little Debbies Snack Cakes, etc. When they paid, she brought out food stamps ... and then a big roll of cash that she used to pay for the alcohol and cigaretts ...

#2 Right now I'm living on the North Side of Chicago in a mixed neighborhood. My condo was fairly expensive and it took alot of saving and hardwork for me to purchase it. Recently five units in our building were sold to the city of Chicago in order for them to be dedicated to Section Eight housing. So, where I pay over $2,000 per month in mortgage, someone on welfare will pay less than $100 a month to stay in the same place, with the same amenities. My parents and in-laws have worked their whole lives and could never afford to live here, in fact, my unit is up for sale because of Worldcom's recent disaster and it is no longer comfortable for me to pay the mortgage. How is it fair ... considering the fact that if I lost my job, I would have to foreclose and move to a terrible apartment while holding a job, but, if I get real poor could maybe score a unit in my current building for free???

Just my two cents

 

The reason I think that many people stay a long time on wellfare isnt that they lack incentive of getting out but that in our current society and I dare say especially in the states it is extremely hard to get out of the dependence of wellfare. Especially if your parents are poor, you live in a poor neighbourhood with bad schools and a general apathy and hopelessness. To be able to get a good job you most often need an education and HS is just not gonna cut it. But to be able to go in college in most nations you need to pay, both for attending and to live during the time. Loans are possible but they dont cover nearly everything and you can job and if you are really good you can get scholarships. But for the vast majority of people help from parents and relatives is vital to get through higher level education. A poor person from a poor neighbourhood just cant get any help from parents and thus end up just like his parent ready to give birth to a new generation of wellfare dependent children.
Math, have you given thought to the possibility of crime for that family? Or perhaps it was the pay day in the month and the morons just couldnt handle economics properly? From what I know wellfare is very tight in the states compared to most other countries but the reason it gauls so many people with job is that many many jobs in the states dont pay much more than you can just get by on it. Thats another thing that should be changed if you want to lower wellfare, make lowpayed jobs better payed, if you get existence minimum from a job or from wellfare I dont really blame those that chooses wellfare even though I wouldnt do it myself.
Where else should the poor people live if not where there are available housing? They have to live somewhere even if it annoying to know that you payed lots for the same house the parasites next door gets for free. Efficency should be sought and perhaps it wasnt in your case but often housing is urgently needed and then they take what is available.

 

Many sympathies, Mathetais. I hope things work out for you, and that your $0.02 doesn't get de-valued to $0.00785 because of how your building/neighborhood is changing.

 

I think there needs to be some specifics. After all, if the question is 'how to reform welfare' then we need to know about what welfare we are talking about since it will operate in drastically different manners in different places.

For example, looking at the U.S. federal welfare, I'm not convinced we need the sweeping reform suggested by some. The latest I can find is that the welfare rolls have been declining through 2002. Since the Welfare reform laws passed by the Clinton administration in 1996 (that'll get a rise) the number of families receiving welfare is down 50% and the number of recipients is down 53%. The percentage of the U.S. on welfare, the most recent numbers I can find, is 2.1% Compare that to 1995 when the number was 5.2%. 1998 was the first year since 1970 that less than 4% of the U.S. population was on welfare and the first time since 1971 it was below 4.5%. The welfare rolls were high throughout the Regan and Bush administration never dropping below 4.6% and climbing as high as 5.3% under Bush. Again, now we are at 2.1% since the reform in 1996.

So, I know it is a hot topic but I'm not sure that is justified given that we are at an almost all time low in the U.S. I know that people have anecdotal evidence of a system out of hand but I think it might be the exception that proves the rule and is far less common than perceived.

Sprite, as for your suggestion of providing food directly and paying rent directly, I understand the idea is to insure that the welfare benefits are being spent as they were intended. However, the transaction costs of such an endeavour would send the costs of welfare through the roof. There would not only be transactional costs such as obtaining the food, shipping it, paying staff to distribute it, buildings to distribute from, gas etc. but there would also be exhorbitant information costs. For millions of people you would have to keep track of who has how much bread, milk, butter, turkey, etc. etc. etc. The private sector already has this infrastructure in place and has done so much more efficiently than the government can.

I'm sure that someone will accuse me of being a "thick American" since I referenced the U.S.' welfare rolls but I think the issue is too complex to talk about without grounding it in some real policy with which to reference. If someone wants to talk about the way welfare works in say Zimbabwe I'm all for it but I'd request some explanation of that system and I'd ask anyone to talk about specific changes to whichever system they choose to talk about.

 

Rally ... thanks! That's another part of the reason I'm moving .. get out before the property value tanks! And that's not me being racist, its just cold, hard facts.

 

Well, Laches, that's part of why I said first that I would rather see it in the hands of charities and churches than governments.

This is an issue that I have a hard time not getting emotional about. I used to teach Sunday school in the poorest neighbourhood in Canada (Point Douglas, Manitoba) and our policy was to feed the kids all the soup and bread they could eat during the services because we knew it was often the only hot meal they ate all week. I don't think we had even one kid in the Sunday school whose parents were churchgoers- they found their own way to church when they were hungry. Sometimes I visited my kids at their homes, and even on welfare-cheque day there was never any food in their houses. I don't mean sometimes, I mean *never*. If there was a box of sugary cereal in the cupboard, they were the lucky ones (Captain Crunch seemed to be the favorite). Their parents usually spent the entire welfare cheque at a (government-owned) casino or at the liquor store the day the cheque came out because they knew the kids could always get food at church if they were really hungry. My god, what do you *do* with people like this? I don't even care that they're abusing the system, let them have all the bingo games and beer they want, so long as we can also find a way to feed their poor babies. As far as I can tell, soup kitchens are the only answer. If you give them a bowl of hot soup or stew, at least they can't sell it to buy liquor. And I think that the social contact with charity workers and churchgoers that resulted from regular visits to soup kitchens is generally good for the children as well. I do believe there's a better chance those kids that we fed will be able to drag themselves out of the welfare trap, because from an early age they knew where to find people whose lives were less full of despair, and who were eager to help.