# Welfare is it wrong?



## bushi jon (Nov 8, 2005)

Here are my thoughts. Welfare was the single worst thing a president ever gave to the U.S.A. It has created a sub class of people that are more than willing to stay on the dole for the rest of there lives. It has also trapped the good people into thinking that they entitled to gvt hand outs.

Do you think we should get rid of welfare or expand it?


----------



## The Kai (Nov 8, 2005)

Look to the great depression, if there is no safety net whole families starved


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 8, 2005)

There are strict time limits for how long a person can receive welfare. Please explain how someone can 'stay on the dole for the rest of their lives'?


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 8, 2005)

bushi jon said:
			
		

> Here are my thoughts. Welfare was the single worst thing a president ever gave to the U.S.A. It has created a sub class of people that are more than willing to stay on the dole for the rest of there lives. It has also trapped the good people into thinking that they entitled to gvt hand outs.
> 
> Do you think we should get rid of welfare or expand it?



Have you ever done any work in Community programs?  Ever had any lengthy contact with people that wouldn't survive without it?

I'm guessing not.

A lot of people who recieve welfare need it to survive, not because they are lazy, but because they are not capable of working.  Whether it is dissability, uneducated single parent, or any other number of reasons which prevent them from being able to work.

Without money they have no home, no phone, no clothes, so even those that could get a job wouldn't be able to.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 8, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There are strict time limits for how long a person can receive welfare. Please explain how someone can 'stay on the dole for the rest of their lives'?


Your not serious are you?


----------



## tshadowchaser (Nov 8, 2005)

There comes a time in some peoples lives when **** happens and they need help. AT that time welfar can be a life saver and the funds from it may be able to keep a family togeather.  I have been there I know.
Getting off welffar is sometimes not as easy as it sounds either, employers sometimes don't want to help someone "in the system" because they fear the person is a lazy, nonproductive sort.
Should someone be on it forever, NO, but there are individuals out there that do need help to get them through a bad period of time


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 8, 2005)

bushi jon said:
			
		

> Here are my thoughts. Welfare was the single worst thing a president ever gave to the U.S.A. It has created a sub class of people that are more than willing to stay on the dole for the rest of there lives. It has also trapped the good people into thinking that they entitled to gvt hand outs.
> 
> Do you think we should get rid of welfare or expand it?


 
I think we should totally subsidize education - including college, create a universal health care system, mandate a living wage, increase aid for child care, and then leave wellfare alone.  No able bodied person needs to live off the govt dole, but some people do need help when they can't live any other way.  Besides, our government spends so little on wellfare, it really isn't worth arguing about IMO.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 8, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your not serious are you?


 
I think we need to define "wellfare"...


----------



## Fallen Ninja (Nov 8, 2005)

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> There comes a time in some peoples lives when **** happens and they need help. AT that time welfar can be a life saver and the funds from it may be able to keep a family togeather. I have been there I know.
> Getting off welffar is sometimes not as easy as it sounds either, employers sometimes don't want to help someone "in the system" because they fear the person is a lazy, nonproductive sort.
> Should someone be on it forever, NO, but there are individuals out there that do need help to get them through a bad period of time


Well said!

Its easy to be on the other side of the fence and talk... but when you're in it...

On the flip side of that coin... which "I have here in my nicotine stained fingers:"
There are those that find holes and the system and exploit them causing those of use that could qualify... can't benefit from them. Almost like a whack grading curve. Those that need it because of circumstance don't qualify because they still make too much....? Weird. :idunno: 

:ninja:
FN


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 8, 2005)

Fallen Ninja said:
			
		

> There are those that find holes and the system and exploit them causing those of use that could qualify... can't benefit from them.



People of all classes exploit the system, doesn't matter if they are lower class scamming a few hundred or a multi billion dollar company scamming millions.

Although I imagine one of those is more costly then the other... just not the one getting complained about here


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 8, 2005)

That welfare has been abused/scammed and over-used by the terminally lazy cannot be denied. But there are people and FAMILIES that *need* the welfare because of one circumstances or another. 
I myself have had to depend upon one welfare service or another and I will say it is indeed a big help. Now that I'm gainfully employed I no longer need it nor request it. Before it helped me get by until I was able to find the job that I have now. 
No, it wasn't the worse thing that A president created. The fact that it had so many loopholes in the beginning (and some today) that it allowed those "terminally lazy" to abuse it that it has been given it's bad name. However it isn't as easy to "abuse" the system today as it was say 10-20 years ago. One cannot walk into a welfare office and expect to walk out with a check or a fistful of foodstamps. Funds/assistance will be cut off after a certian time and job searches are required... and the next time one applies (after assistance is cut off) they're required more to do to re-acquire it... i.e. more (accountable) job searches and community services hours like working at a food bank (ironically) and so forth.
So for those who have families and are honestly and dilligently searching for employment welfare can be a boon. At least their *children* won't starve!


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 8, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your not serious are you?


 
Yes, I am. 



> *The 1996 Welfare Law and Changes to Date Replacement of AFDC by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families *TANF is a fixed block grant for state-designed programs of time-limited and work-conditioned aid to families with children. Enacted on August 22, 1996 (P. L. 104-193), it repealed AFDC, Emergency Assistance for Needy Families, and the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program and replaced them with TANF. It combines previous funding levels for the three programs into a single block ($ 16.5 billion annually through FY2002) and entitles each state to a fixed annual sum based on pre-TANF funding. It also provides an average of $2.3 billion annually in a new child care block grant. The law appropriates extra funds for loans, contingencies, bonuses for "high performance" and for reducing out-of wedlock births, and supplemental grants for states with historically low federal welfare funding per poor person and/ or rapid population gain. As amended in 1997 (P. L. 105-33), TANF law also provided a $3 billion program in FY1998-FY1999 for welfare-to- work (WtW) grants, most of which required state cost sharing, to help states achieve required work participation rates TANF greatly enlarged state discretion in operating family welfare, and it ended the benefit entitlement of individual families. States decide what kinds of needy families to help and whether to adopt financial rewards for work. TANF explicitly allows states to administer benefits and provide services through contracts/ vouchers with charitable, religious, or private organizations, a provision widely called Charitable Choice. Attached to the TANF block grant are some federal conditions. States must achieve minimum work participation rates and maintain at least 75% of their "historic" level of state welfare funding, increased to 80% if the state fails the work participation rate. States must require parents and other caretaker recipients to engage in state-defined "work" after a maximum of 24 months of benefits and *must impose a general 5-year time limit on federally-funded ongoing basic benefits*. They may exempt single parents with a child under age 1 from required work (and from the calculation of work participation rates). In FY2002, 50% of all families with an adult recipient must work (including 90% of families with two parents); these rates are lowered for caseload declines from FY1995 levels. States are forbidden to give TANF aid to unwed parents under 18 unless they live under adult supervision, and, if high school dropouts, attend school. States may continue reforms begun under waivers from AFDC rules even if terms are inconsistent with the new law. (For TANF provisions, as compared to AFDC, see CRS Report 96-720.)


----------



## Lisa (Nov 8, 2005)

My mom was a case worker for social services for quite a few years.  She would tell me the sad stories about people losing their jobs and needing money to help them out.  She often said it had to be one of the hardest things for MOST of the people to ask for.  The stigma attached to it would often prevent people who really needed it from asking for it until things got really bad for them.  She agreed that there were those that probably were raking the system but she said those that truly needed it far outweighed those that didn't.  She was a firm believer that the system was a very necessary part of our society, I believe that too.


----------



## bcbernam777 (Nov 8, 2005)

During times like a great depression there needs to be a welfare system in place as the saftey net, however during prospourous times there needs to be a distinction between those deserving i.e. Children in crisis and the disabled and elderly, the weaker of our society need to be protected whilst those who are able to work should get off their **** and work.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 8, 2005)

My feelings on this are in another thread relating to this....you want to know them find the thread.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 8, 2005)

I don't think that abuse of the system is the norm.

I like living in a country that helps out its citizens. Frankly, I wish we could next do something about health care costs.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Nov 9, 2005)

MA-Caver said:
			
		

> That welfare has been abused/scammed and over-used by the terminally lazy cannot be denied. But there are people and FAMILIES that *need* the welfare because of one circumstances or another.
> I myself have had to depend upon one welfare service or another and I will say it is indeed a big help. Now that I'm gainfully employed I no longer need it nor request it. Before it helped me get by until I was able to find the job that I have now.
> No, it wasn't the worse thing that A president created. The fact that it had so many loopholes in the beginning (and some today) that it allowed those "terminally lazy" to abuse it that it has been given it's bad name. However it isn't as easy to "abuse" the system today as it was say 10-20 years ago. One cannot walk into a welfare office and expect to walk out with a check or a fistful of foodstamps. Funds/assistance will be cut off after a certian time and job searches are required... and the next time one applies (after assistance is cut off) they're required more to do to re-acquire it... i.e. more (accountable) job searches and community services hours like working at a food bank (ironically) and so forth.
> So for those who have families and are honestly and dilligently searching for employment welfare can be a boon. At least their *children* won't starve!


 
Exactly. As my Abnormal Psychology professor used to say, while describing the afflictions of those less fortunate than ourselves: "... but for the grace of God, there go I". Sure there are abuses and those need to be handled vigorously, but there are many, many people who have to go on some sort of aid for a time in order to survive.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 9, 2005)

Here are a few links on poverty and welfare studies - I find the pie chart here  compelling.

Although this site is at CSUF, there are stats for California and the USA.
http://guides.library.fullerton.edu/govstats/poverty&welfare.htm

This is a nonpartisan site which publishes fact-finding results.
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/factfiles.cfm?issue_type=welfare

I have heard it argued, and I rather agree, that if one wishes to remove the welfare system then something must be in place for the care of these children.  It was also suggested that many of these children are not recipients of any child support by non-custodial parents and that perhaps mandatory, automatic wage garnishment on ALL support-paying parents punishable by federal law COULD help abate SOME of the strain on welfare.  I'm looking for stats on this right now, but I think that argument has some merit.

I used to be very much against welfare until I learned about the Great Depression and the expanding gap between the haves and have-nots ... as my father used to say, "Would you rather give a little from your paycheck every month, or get stabbed for the five dollars in your pocket?"

Well, of course, I could be stabbed for a lot less, but I think the point is that the impoverished will obtain need fulfillment one way or another.  There ARE people who manage to get off of welfare - problem with this program is the flaw where you can't seem to get off of it and remain secure.  It's not designed for you to get off of it with relative comfort that you won't need to go back on or find another assistance program.

I think it's better than the alternative.


----------



## bushi jon (Nov 9, 2005)

So we all agree that welfare is flawed. As for the comment aluding to I have never been around people that need welfare,your wrong. We should be putting our money into, free college,grant money for small buis,fuel exploration. I have known very few people that have gotten off of welfare after they went on it. I would like to see the stats on how many of the recipients of welfare are single mothers and how many of them are gettting support from the childrens father. I think if we had those stats we would all be shocked.


----------



## MJS (Nov 9, 2005)

Lisa said:
			
		

> My mom was a case worker for social services for quite a few years. She would tell me the sad stories about people losing their jobs and needing money to help them out. She often said it had to be one of the hardest things for MOST of the people to ask for. The stigma attached to it would often prevent people who really needed it from asking for it until things got really bad for them. She agreed that there were those that probably were raking the system but she said those that truly needed it far outweighed those that didn't. She was a firm believer that the system was a very necessary part of our society, I believe that too.


 
Lisa, going on this and the quote from michaeledward, I'm curious as to how many case workers there are compared to the number of cases.  I'm willing to bet that regardless of the time limits, there are just too many cases to have someone constantly monitor them, therefore, many people slip through the cracks, and stay on it much longer than they should.

Mike


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 9, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Lisa, going on this and the quote from michaeledward, I'm curious as to how many case workers there are compared to the number of cases. I'm willing to bet that regardless of the time limits, there are just too many cases to have someone constantly monitor them, therefore, many people slip through the cracks, and stay on it much longer than they should.


Check out the links I posted - there are TONS of statistics at that site, also www.census.gov.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2005)

80% of the children and families I work with are on public assistance and not a single one wants to live like that.  Everyone, in my experience, wants to work, for the simple fact that sitting around the house all day doing nothing is really boring.  The fact that some people cannot work, has already been established, however, even those people would rather DO something, find some meaning in their lives.  

If the wellfare system is flawed, the only reason it is, IMO, is because its not enough.  President Clinton puts it best, "the best social program is a good paying job."  And I've got to agree.  However, in this day and age, finding a good job requires a certain amount of stability that people in poverty have never had.  In order for people to work, people need to be fed, they need to be healthy, they need to be educated, they need people to take care of children.  If one of these are lacking, the whole house of cards tumbles down.

In the US, If we really are serious about wanting people to work, we must make sure our citizens have enough food, we must make sure that every citizen has easy access to good health care, we must make all public (and some private) education affordable and accessable for all citizens, and we must make every effort to take care of our children...they are our most precious gift.  And lastly, we must make sure that jobs in this country pays enough for families to live.  

If we did all of this, able bodied people would not need wellfare.  Cuts would happen naturally, because no one would use it.  And the few that abuse the system could easily be cut off and forced to take advantage of our great country's generosity.  

Imagine a nation where poverty is an oddity...and not an exception.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 9, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> And lastly, we must make sure that jobs in this country pays enough for families to live.


Actually, I think this needs to be firstly.  Our minimum wage isn't enough to support ANY adult and there are plenty of adults still on minimum wage.  Many of those jobs do not include health insurance as benefit, and even the ones that do, some min. wage workers will opt out so they can keep and use the money that would have been paid towards a premium for buying food and paying for heat.

When you get enough adults in one household unable to work because of untreated illness, guess what? You have a welfare situation.  If there are children in that home, guess what? You have a welfare situation.

The problems with the welfare system tie in to other controversial issues that directly affect spending on unwanted children, abandoned children, injured workers without insurance, an unskilled and/or uneducated sector, unaffordable housing, poor food quality, etcetera.  

The welfare problem isn't JUST a welfare problem.


----------



## qizmoduis (Nov 9, 2005)

bushi jon said:
			
		

> Here are my thoughts. Welfare was the single worst thing a president ever gave to the U.S.A. It has created a sub class of people that are more than willing to stay on the dole for the rest of there lives. It has also trapped the good people into thinking that they entitled to gvt hand outs.
> 
> Do you think we should get rid of welfare or expand it?



Absolutely we should get rid of it!  I'm sick and tired of billions of our tax dollars being funneled into the pockets of giant, bloated corporations and CEOs while millions of unfortunate folks don't even have access to health care.

We should abolish coporate welfare right now.

But that's probably not what you meant, is it?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 9, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I used to be very much against welfare until I learned about the Great Depression and the expanding gap between the haves and have-nots ... as my father used to say, "Would you rather give a little from your paycheck every month, or get stabbed for the five dollars in your pocket?"


 
This is good advice. Of course, that's the motivation from fear--as you and others indicate, there are also altruistic reasons to do this. But yes, if there isn't this support, violence and other forms of crime will surely increase.



> Well, of course, I could be stabbed for a lot less


 
Yeah, someone tried to stab me for $2 once.

As to the minimum wage, we just had a huge debate on that here as Albuquerque and Santa Fe both considered "living wage" proposals. It's complicated. Those with jobs are indeed paid more--if their hours aren't cut--but others aren't hired as businesses try to cut costs. The newspaper ran story after story after story and no clear conclusion emerged. One thing, it seems it hurts teenagers looking for their first job disproprotionately. In the short term that may mean older people with families are doing better, but in the long run can set up the same cycle we're discussing.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 9, 2005)

Just to get this out there before I go to work, check out these stats on the "poor."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

Sorry I'm about to go to work.


----------



## andy (Nov 9, 2005)

The idea that man should help fellow man has always been the first best response to suffering. However,charity is a product of free will. Charity is a quality of spirit that cannot be forced.
 To 'force' an individual into a kind deed nullifys the act of good will and becomes a form of slavery. 

 Welfare is nothing more then taking from one and redistributing to another. WITH OR WITHOUT the consent of the individual..(insert the word socialist anytime) 

 If someone chooses to help the fellow man of free will that is a kind and noble deed. If a state mandated regulation demands money(the sweat of your brow) from you and redistributes it in ways you have no control over that is not charity.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 9, 2005)

Xequat said:
			
		

> Just to get this out there before I go to work, check out these stats on the "poor."
> 
> http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
> 
> Sorry I'm about to go to work.



This article uses unknown factors to support its position and is partisan slanted.  I will be looking into the sources the table cites to see if I can replicate their results for my own edification.

This table cites that many impoverished people own their home.  Is it in an inhabitable state?  Is it the parent's home that's been paid off and is in ill repair? or are we talking about an updated, upgraded 1700 sq. foot home with the latest and greatest technology? Are there holes in the walls? lead paint? safe stairways? functioning furnaces? They own a car or truck - is it running? how old is it? Hell, we own a van, a compact, a pickup, a dump truck, a '30 sedan, a '34 pickup, a dumptruck, a 50's flatbed and a caterpillar.  TWO run at all and only ONE of them runs decently and it still puts out gas fumes inside the car.  Can we afford to get one of the others running? No.

The table states that many have air conditioning - how many can afford to run it?  Having the unit in the wall doesn't mean it runs and it doesn't mean they can afford to run it.  

Other items of "comfort" the impoverished own:  washer, dryer, refrigerator, microwave, garbage disposal, television, stereo, DVD/VCR, cel phone, answering machine, computer, internet access.

When we purhased our new washer and dryer, we sold the old set for $50 - no one can buy a new set in a store for that amount of money.  I have given away televisions and microwaves, sold a stereo at a garage sale once for $5.00 and a complete (but old) computer system for $20.

Statistics on owning these items really means nothing - they can be purchased at very low cost, Netzero offers some internet access for free, there is such a thing as christmas gifts where people get new stuff for free even if they're poor.  Poverty in this nation has a different spin than poverty in, say, Africa. 

Here is how poverty is determined by the census bureau.  I recommend clicking around on these sites and downloading some of the PDFs to learn about the poverty threshold, statistics, etcetera.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 9, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> In the US, If we really are serious about wanting people to work, we must make sure our citizens have enough food, we must make sure that every citizen has easy access to good health care, we must make all public (and some private) education affordable and accessable for all citizens, and we must make every effort to take care of our children...they are our most precious gift. And lastly, we must make sure that jobs in this country pays enough for families to live.


 So if we give people enough food, give them enough healthcare, give them enough education, and take care of their children, they will want to work for what exactly? Dont get me wrong, I'm not saying welfare is bad or wrong, many people really need it and it has really helped people alot. However, there is a thin line here that most choose to ignore. Where do we draw the line between helping and giving? Its just like those of us who run Martial Arts school....ever seen how differently a student trains when you allow them to come for free or when you make them at least do work around the school to pay for their classes? In my experience those who have to pay (at least something) take it much more seriously and stay much longer. Why? Because it has worth. The line must be drawn, why is it the government's or anyone elses responsibility to take care of other people? Personal responsibility needs to be nurtured and in many cases it is. However there are those cases that abuse the system, there allways will be, but increasing welfare is not going to change that. We need to look at other options that affect welfare. Like Sheshulsa said welfare isn't the only option. Wages and such are an important issue. I share your eagerness for a country where poverty is an exception, but I do not believe increasing welfare alone will do anything towards that goal.

I will make this small personal experience: My wife and I looked a while back at buying a house, being first time buyers we looked at different programs for assistance. We were both too rich and too white for any of these programs. I am in school full time (paid for by me alone), work part time and my wife works an hourly job full time. According to census records we were in the poverty level, yet no one could get us any assistance. In fact, we were told straight up that if we were a minority race we could qualify right away....oh also if my wife was a minority and pregnant, we had it in the bag. 

Increasing the amount of money available (or not available depending on whom you ask) isn't the answer.

7sm


----------



## lonecoyote (Nov 9, 2005)

Oh yeah, those people on welfare have got it made, really hit the jackpot. You pay into it for years, then hard times strike, so you go to get help. You wait for hours and hours with hundreds of folks, its hot, its uncomfortable, the kids are out of control, people getting upset. You then meet up with someone whose job as they see it is to make you feel like crap for asking for help. Doesn't matter how much you put into the system over the years. They see so many cases anyway, they don't even look at you like a human being. If you didn't need help you wouldn't be there. If you're lucky you get a little help, and it's barely enough to get by. No one gets rich on welfare, no one even lives comfortably on welfare. Ever been to a big city housing project, those places are paradises huh? Yeah, that welfare is a sweet deal, no doubt. That was sarcasm, for those of you that didn't know.


----------



## Lisa (Nov 9, 2005)

MJS said:
			
		

> Lisa, going on this and the quote from michaeledward, I'm curious as to how many case workers there are compared to the number of cases. I'm willing to bet that regardless of the time limits, there are just too many cases to have someone constantly monitor them, therefore, many people slip through the cracks, and stay on it much longer than they should.
> 
> Mike



MJS,

I can only respond with what I know as to how things are up here in Winnipeg.  My mom worked for the City Social services department which has now been absorbed by the Provincial Social Services Department.

When someone comes to apply for assistance they are seen by an intake worker, intake workers see in excess of 20 cases per week.  Once they deem the person eligible the case is sent to a social worker to be followed.  Depending on their situation whether they are disabled, family or single, etc. depends on which social worker gets their case.  The social workers have in excess of 80 active clients in their case load.  I should also mention that the social workers themselves do not go out and check up on people, they have a special investigational unit for that and that most of the cases the "tips" come from a hotline where neighbours, friends and family will turn in people that might be abusing the system.  The investigator goes from there.

Please keep in mind that some things may have changed as my mom has been retired for a few years.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 9, 2005)

> This article uses unknown factors to support its position and is partisan slanted. I will be looking into the sources the table cites to see if I can replicate their results for my own edification.


 
Good luck.  The article is from The Heritage Foundation, an ultra-conservative think tank.  Of course they don't support helping the poor.  Plus, if you look closely, the bullet points are not exactly taken from the US Census.  They take the DEFINITION of "poor" from the Census, but then they use "various government reports" to make their points.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 9, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Good luck. The article is from The Heritage Foundation, an ultra-conservative think tank. Of course they don't support helping the poor. Plus, if you look closely, the bullet points are not exactly taken from the US Census. They take the DEFINITION of "poor" from the Census, but then they use "various government reports" to make their points.



Yeah, I see that, however on the chart a handful of organizations and businesses are listed as the sources for the information.  I'm hoping on verifying their facts (of course there have been rumors about Limbaugh's fact checkers ...).


----------



## MJS (Nov 9, 2005)

Lisa said:
			
		

> MJS,
> 
> I can only respond with what I know as to how things are up here in Winnipeg. My mom worked for the City Social services department which has now been absorbed by the Provincial Social Services Department.
> 
> ...


 
Lisa,

Thanks for the reply!   It seems like its pretty much the same here, with the amount of workload.  Sounds like there is more work than people to do it.  This may be one of the reasons why people slip through.

Thanks again.

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> So if we give people enough food, give them enough healthcare, give them enough education, and take care of their children, they will want to work for what exactly?


 
There is still plenty to work for.  People can still set goals beyond being fed and healthy.  And, as I'm sure you know, having access to education and actually earning that education are two very different things.  Lots of work is involved in that.  If people are going to work, these four things have got to be in order.  These basic, bare bones, needs MUST be taken care of somehow.  There is still plenty to be _personally responsible_ for beyond these four things.

I've worked directly with hundreds of families in poverty and I have direct experience with being in poverty.  From my experience, and from what I've been able to read, if one of the above is out of commision, that families participation in our society is jeopardized.  How can one focus on a job if they or their children are going hungry everyday?  How can one work if one is too unhealthy to do so?  How can one work a job if they lack the skills to work that job?  How can one work a job if there is no one to take care of the children?

Having all of the above covered is primary, before having living wage jobs.  Without these four things, no job, no matter how high paying, is going to be enough.  Our society can do so much more...if only we built a few less bombs.

upnorthkyosa

ps - I should probably add water, shelter and safety to the list.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 9, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There is still plenty to work for. People can still set goals beyond being fed and healthy. And, as I'm sure you know, having access to education and actually earning that education are two very different things. Lots of work is involved in that. If people are going to work, these four things have got to be in order. These basic, bare bones, needs MUST be taken care of somehow. There is still plenty to be _personally responsible_ for beyond these four things.


Your assuming that everyone working is doing so to fulfill some need or goal beyond making money, thats simply not the case. In todays world its actually becoming quite rare to find someone working for something beyond money. Your point about education is well taken, in fact it supports my own beliefs on the matter. I see hundreds of people a semester who come to Tyler Junior College(TJC), enroll in classes, get federal, state, or private grants....miss class, miss tests, drop at the right moment...keep grant money. Having access to educational facilities most certainly does not make one get an education....my point exactly. If someone is used to not having to work for any basic needs they aren't conditioned to work even for their own education. Many dont really care anyway. Personal responsibility shouldn't be split into categories (i.e. I can be personall responsible for my own satifaction of personal goals, but not for basic needs).



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I've worked directly with hundreds of families in poverty and I have direct experience with being in poverty. From my experience, and from what I've been able to read, if one of the above is out of commision, that families participation in our society is jeopardized. How can one focus on a job if they or their children are going hungry everyday? How can one work if one is too unhealthy to do so? How can one work a job if they lack the skills to work that job? How can one work a job if there is no one to take care of the children?


Jeopardized just automatically means devoid? My parents quit their jobs and moved all 5 of us into a 700 square foot shack (from a 4200 sq ft house) to be missionaries with no salary, just "faith income". Trust me, I understand poverty from both sides. If your child is going hungry, you must focus on a job or on hunting or something, why should it be focusing on the government? I'm not saying the government shoudln't help, but it shouldnt be the expected responsibility it is now. Your solution offers quick fixes of surface issues, not lifelong (or longer) fixes of deep rooted issues. In your perfect world everyone would help each other out anyway, so no welfare would be needed. 

Having these basics covered is important, I'm not knocking that....I'm just saying people should look inside themselves and find ways of meeting these needs rather than making it the governemnts responsibility to meet these. Sure, people are in positions where they cannot meet these needs themselves. These people need help, I agree. However, your proposing to increase the effectiveness of welfare and the fixing of social economic problems by simply increasing welfare. That doesn't solve any of the later issues, just quick "today" issues.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2005)

None of the things that I have suggested are quick fix measure by any means.  However, they seem to work pretty well in other countries that have adapted them.  In fact, these other countries are starting to compete with the US and are outstripping our ability to keep up.  

Take, for instance, health care.  We spend 15% of our gdp trying to pay for it.  Countries that have instituted a universal plan pay at most 11%.  Most pay much less.  How does this affect America?  Take GM...they won't invest much in the US, but they'll put billions into Canada...why?  Good social policy.  

How does this help the poor?  By making us competitive in the global market, we draw jobs and investment back to our country, increasing opportunity.  So how's that for a back door draft?  We institute social programs that are common in every other industrialized nation and suddenly we find ourselves able to compete better then those nations.

IMO, taking care of our basic needs, our health, our education, and our children is not something the individual should be totally responsible for.  When you have kids of your own, you'll see what I mean...a village is damned helpful  

We have a personal responsability in a society and we have a social responsability.  If we expect people to work in order to live a middle class life style, then we need to expand our sphere of social responsability to encompasse the things that I noted above.

Otherwise we will be stuck with the system we have.  Give people a pittance.  Let them live in squalor.  Pile them in neighborhoods that are cloistered and isolated, and let them prey on each other.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 9, 2005)

Has anyone ever had to get a job while being homeless?  Homeless and chronically ill?  Homeless, cronically ill, and with children?  Homeless, chronically ill, with children, and no education?


----------



## bcbernam777 (Nov 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Has anyone ever had to get a job while being homeless? Homeless and chronically ill? Homeless, cronically ill, and with children? Homeless, chronically ill, with children, and no education?


 
Yes


----------



## Raewyn (Nov 10, 2005)

I have used the welfare system once.  Due to unfortunate circumstances I had lost my job as well as my husband at the same time and had to wait three weeks before we could apply for the dole.  Once on it, all I wanted to do was get off it and earn more money!!!   For some people on welfare this can be a viscous circle, where as other people have learnt to exploit it to their own advantage!!!  I personally think that there should be a welfare system it would all depend on how well it is managed, but unfortunatley we dont live in a perfect world.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> None of the things that I have suggested are quick fix measure by any means. However, they seem to work pretty well in other countries that have adapted them. In fact, these other countries are starting to compete with the US and are outstripping our ability to keep up.
> 
> Take, for instance, health care. We spend 15% of our gdp trying to pay for it. Countries that have instituted a universal plan pay at most 11%. Most pay much less. How does this affect America? Take GM...they won't invest much in the US, but they'll put billions into Canada...why? Good social policy.
> 
> How does this help the poor? By making us competitive in the global market, we draw jobs and investment back to our country, increasing opportunity. So how's that for a back door draft? We institute social programs that are common in every other industrialized nation and suddenly we find ourselves able to compete better then those nations.


 Actually, throwing more money at a problem is allways a quick fix. Your not addressing the issues that make the system ineffective, your just offering to "up the dose". I dont view the world as a competition where we must "keep up" but I do see the need to stay "afloat". However, your healthcare plan is flawed because it doesn't take into account quality. Sure quality doesn't matter much, especially in healthcare. :wink: Socialistic healthcare isn' tthe solution, if your so worried about accessable healthcare, go to med school and open a free clinic. Thats actually doing something to help, now your just complaining and saying: "someone else (government) needs to do something". Why must all problems be answered with the same answer...Government? Instituting programs that are common in other countries doesn't really address any issues either, except wanting to stay on top of or better than other countries. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> IMO, taking care of our basic needs, our health, our education, and our children is not something the individual should be totally responsible for. When you have kids of your own, you'll see what I mean...a village is damned helpful
> 
> We have a personal responsability in a society and we have a social responsability. If we expect people to work in order to live a middle class life style, then we need to expand our sphere of social responsability to encompasse the things that I noted above.


 Your making a point that actually hurts your argument here. First, basic needs are not individuals responsibility? Thats a major cop out and is an excuse for not doing a good enough job in these issues. Your taking away any personal responsibility thus taking away benefits of responsibility such as work ethic, personal satisfaction, and biological needs to provide for ones family. Of course basic needs are first and foremost the responsibility of the individual, anything else is simply "passing the buck". Your also trying to correlate between helpful and responsible. The "villiage being helpful" is not the "government being responsible". Your talking personal and social responsibility...I agree, but then your trying to pass the buck on the social responsibility to be mandated by the governemnt. I'll quote [SIZE=-1]Zack de la Rocha on that one..."Freedom...yeah right". 

Lets explore this "villiage" scenario a bit. In fact, we could take Native Americans for an example. Their social responsibility was clear in the way they lived, and each person helped out and the villiage survived. They didn't have a government taking buffalo away from one person and giving it to the guy who was a member of PETA and didn't want to hunt. Sure there were elderly that were taken care of by others but not be force....So now skip forward to today, you should look up some statistics on Native American populations on welfare. Why is it so many are jobless, educationless, healthcare-less? You could blame alchohol, laziness, or many other factors right? Well, what changed in their lifestyle? You could say modernization, carless genocide, or a lack of need to do anything for themselves. 

I agree with personal and social responsibility, but I do not believe in passing that responsibility off to the government. If its our responsibility, lets take care of it and not feed into the vicious cycle of "passing the buck".
[/SIZE]  


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Otherwise we will be stuck with the system we have. Give people a pittance. Let them live in squalor. Pile them in neighborhoods that are cloistered and isolated, and let them prey on each other.


 Yes because we are completely responsible for the crime committed in poverty areas!  Crime pays better than work, allways has, allways will. Its how it is, your not going to change that by making welfare pay as high as crime.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Actually, throwing more money at a problem is allways a quick fix. Your not addressing the issues that make the system ineffective, your just offering to "up the dose".


 
Creating new institutions to help lift up the poor from the circumstances of their births is nothing like "throwing money at a problem".  In fact, doing something like this has absolutely no resemblance to a random, unplanned throwing.  This caricature is nothing but a strawman.  Anyone who has actually seen a good system in another country can tell you...it is NOT throwing money...and it works.



> I dont view the world as a competition where we must "keep up" but I do see the need to stay "afloat". However, your healthcare plan is flawed because it doesn't take into account quality. Sure quality doesn't matter much, especially in healthcare. :wink:


 
A universal health care plan doesn't affect quality.  This argument is nothing but a bugbear planted by the insurance industry.  They say things like "there will be no incentive to be the best" as if saving people's lives came secondary to making money.  That's a load of BS.  Talk to any health care professional, they are in it for the people.  The reason the US has the highest quality health care is because we have the most money in the world plain and simple.  Paul Wellstone cited numerous government reports that showed this and his arguments always were drowned out on the senate floor.



> Socialistic healthcare isn' tthe solution...


 
A universal health plan isn't necessarily socialistic.  The government bargains with private industries on the behalf of its citizens.  The government is not creating a communistic system where private industry is abolished.  Labling universal plans as socialistic is just more disinformation.



> ...if your so worried about accessable healthcare, go to med school and open a free clinic.  Thats actually doing something to help, now your just complaining and saying: "someone else (government) needs to do something".


 
I can only do so much.  As it is, I've dedicated my life to public service.  The only difference is that I serve in a difference sector then health care.  This suggestion is kind of cheap.  I'd like to see what you actually do...



> Why must all problems be answered with the same answer...Government?


 
Its just a fundamental difference of opinion.  I believe that the government is a tool of the people.  I believe that people can use the government and our democracy to make a better society.  



> Instituting programs that are common in other countries doesn't really address any issues either, except wanting to stay on top of or better than other countries.


 
You totally missed the point.  On top of providing a stable base for people to actually work, by instituting these social programs we make America more competitive.  This *directly* translates into creating *more* opportunity for people.  Not only are we lifting people up, we are creating place for them to go!



> Your making a point that actually hurts your argument here.


 
 



> First, basic needs are not individuals responsibility? Thats a major cop out and is an excuse for not doing a good enough job in these issues. Your taking away any personal responsibility thus taking away benefits of responsibility such as work ethic, personal satisfaction, and biological needs to provide for ones family. Of course basic needs are first and foremost the responsibility of the individual, anything else is simply "passing the buck".


 
This is not an either or argument.  It is not black and white.  And the separation between individual responsability and social in these instances is not easily discerned.  If you say that providing food for yourself and your family is an individuals responsability, why don't you grow your own food?  By depending on the farmer are you "passing the buck"?  We are all intrincically linked in a society and when people are starving, sick, and poor, it effects us in thousands of ways.  IT IS FAR MORE EXPENSIVE TO "PASS THE BUCK" ON THESE PROBLEMS THEN IT IS TO ADDRESS THEM!  American is being nickled and dimed to death because 25% of this country lives in poverty.  



> Your also trying to correlate between helpful and responsible. The "villiage being helpful" is not the "government being responsible". Your talking personal and social responsibility...I agree, but then your trying to pass the buck on the social responsibility to be mandated by the governemnt. I'll quote [SIZE=-1]Zack de la Rocha on that one..."Freedom...yeah right".[/SIZE]


 
Um, that is not the intent of that Rage song.  And in this instance, this vaunted freedom comes at the expense of millions.  [SIZE=-1] 



> Lets explore this "villiage" scenario a bit. In fact, we could take Native Americans for an example. Their social responsibility was clear in the way they lived, and each person helped out and the villiage survived. They didn't have a government taking buffalo away from one person and giving it to the guy who was a member of PETA and didn't want to hunt. Sure there were elderly that were taken care of by others but not be force....


 
There was an understanding between people...and there is no reason why this understanding can't be expanded into our greater society.



> So now skip forward to today, you should look up some statistics on Native American populations on welfare. Why is it so many are jobless, educationless, healthcare-less? You could blame alchohol, laziness, or many other factors right? Well, what changed in their lifestyle? You could say modernization, carless genocide, or a lack of need to do anything for themselves.


 
Or it could be a lack of political power and money.  How about the marginalization of their culture?  Or how about our general ignorance?  I wish that I could take every single person in this country through Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota.  People just don't know or understand...



> I agree with personal and social responsibility, but I do not believe in passing that responsibility off to the government. If its our responsibility, lets take care of it and not feed into the vicious cycle of "passing the buck".


 
Yes, lets stop "passing the buck" on our social responsablity.  The social programs of the 60s were wildly successful.  We should go back to our roots.

[/SIZE]


> Yes because we are completely responsible for the crime committed in poverty areas!  Crime pays better than work, allways has, allways will. Its how it is, your not going to change that by making welfare pay as high as crime.


 
Not completely.  Partially.  This, too, is not black and white.  The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.  Get it straight...

upnorthkyosa


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 10, 2005)

I wonder how much the country could insure the welfare of the citizenry if we reallocated a hundred billion dollars from the military? And then, while we were at it, we could probably save another hundred billion from the military and us that to reduce our deficit. And we would still be spending more on the military than the next 4 or 5 countries combined. 

But, throwing money at something is always a quick fix, eh?


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Jeopardized just automatically means devoid? My parents quit their jobs and moved all 5 of us into a 700 square foot shack (from a 4200 sq ft house) to be missionaries with no salary, just "faith income". Trust me, I understand poverty from both sides. If your child is going hungry, you must focus on a job or on hunting or something, why should it be focusing on the government? I'm not saying the government shoudln't help, but it shouldnt be the expected responsibility it is now.


Agreed, however, how is someone who doesn' t have an address going to get a job?  Someone without decent clothing?

The temporary welfare solution works if people will make it temporary, but here's the problem: if you're on welfare and in gov't housing and you manage to find work, they kick you off the program before you can amass enough liquid assets to obtain new housing (even an apartment), establish an emergency cash fund so it doesn't happen again, or get insured through your new job. So a person would be left with a job, a few dollars in his/her pocket, no insurance (probationary period), and no home. How does one work with no address, no place to wash clothing and get clean? You can't stay in a shelter for too long. So many people get sick and can't go to work because they have no place to stay, no insurance to get well, lose their job and they're back at square one.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> Your solution offers quick fixes of surface issues, not lifelong (or longer) fixes of deep rooted issues. In your perfect world everyone would help each other out anyway, so no welfare would be needed.


You know, nothing can be perfect, but I think most people really don't understand how powerful even the smallest act of volunteerism is. Volunteerism is the answer to many of our national and social woes. I wish I could find the pamphlet I used to have that said if every person who were able (by time, money and ability allotment) to volunteer did volunteer the equivalent of 15 minutes of their time twice per month (given the value of that person's time), need in this country would vanish. I wish I knew where those stats came from.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> We have a personal responsability in a society and we have a social responsability. If we expect people to work in order to live a middle class life style, then we need to expand our sphere of social responsability to encompasse the things that I noted above.


More wise words from Dad: People are like a corn crop. If you plant enough corn for one plant, if it grows you will get small ears of poor quality if it produces at all. When you plant corn as a patch with enough room between and not too much, the corn crop grows as a single organism - the plants foster each other and more corn of better quality is produced.



			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> According to census records we were in the poverty level, yet no one could get us any assistance. In fact, we were told straight up that if we were a minority race we could qualify right away....oh also if my wife was a minority and pregnant, we had it in the bag.


In an America where many of our large cities are mostly populated by non-minorities, this is indicative of incentive and reward programs that need to be revamped, certainly.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 10, 2005)

I heard of a charitable program once that provided mailing addresses, voice mail, and e-mail to the homeless. Not shelter--they were trying to help people get jobs and knew how hard it was for them to do so without contact info. and means like this.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 10, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> I heard of a charitable program once that provided mailing addresses, voice mail, and e-mail to the homeless. Not shelter--they were trying to help people get jobs and knew how hard it was for them to do so without contact info. and means like this.


Indeed!  (Oh, I wish aging didn't involve memory loss ...)  This kind of program is an EXCELLENT help to those in shelters, those in transition, homeless  - anyone who is trying to climb out of the hole.  I think it is also, unfortunately, difficult to keep funded.  Immediate needs such as food, clothing, water and shelter are easy to see, tangible to fix.  This kind of service takes secure locations to deliver mail (similar to a P.O. Box), someone to sort voicemail, a server, someone to maintain it, backup, round-the-clock security.  Important and Expensive.


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 10, 2005)

There are a few organizations here that provide the phone number service.

The organization I work for provides technical training, mostly to those on assistance.  We train people and help them find jobs. 

Given what some of them have to go through in there lives to get to the place of what is still considered a entry level job it is amazing to see them do it.  

It also seems to be that those that say people on assistance are lazy and should get jobs have never heard the stories of what goes on in poor communities, they don't understand how hard putting food on the table and keeping your kids out of gangs can be.

There are good, smart, hard working, people on assistance, not by there choice, and many are trying very hard to get out of that situation.  But everytime money gets cut and they loose their home, loose their phone, can't afford a winter coat for their kids, have to send a kid to school without a lunch, have a gang trying to recruit their kid, or any other number of problems that the people complaining the system should be cut have never had to deal with on a day to day basis.

The system needs more money, not just to be thrown at it as was claimed above, but to fund training programs in addition to providing basic costs of living to help those that want out, to get out.

The village system has been mentioned, and well, things have changed.  We have much larger communities, the people that need help are no longer visible, related, or related to friends.  We bring home paychecks instead of hunting animals, which we are much more possesive about and less likely to share amongst the village.

So yes, we need to enforce the sharring, and I'd bet it was enforced then too.  If someone who was capable of sharring horded everything, I'd imagine they'd become pretty disliked in the community, and not have much shared back.

No sharing means no community, just a bunch of greedy hermits chasing kids off their yard...


----------



## Andrew Green (Nov 10, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I think it is also, unfortunately, difficult to keep funded. Immediate needs such as food, clothing, water and shelter are easy to see, tangible to fix.



Funders like numbers.  They want to know exactly how many people got coats directly from their contribution. They want to know exactly how many people thier money got a job for.  

They don't like to fund things that aren't as apparent in their results, like a organizations admin, or director.  Their is no direct and trackable result.  They can't go back and say "Our $40,000 contribution provided a admin assistant" doesn't sound as good as "Our $40,000 contribution provided 10 people who where living off assistance with a college certificate and jobs"


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Creating new institutions to help lift up the poor from the circumstances of their births is nothing like "throwing money at a problem". In fact, doing something like this has absolutely no resemblance to a random, unplanned throwing. This caricature is nothing but a strawman. Anyone who has actually seen a good system in another country can tell you...it is NOT throwing money...and it works.


 I was responding to your statmenent here:


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If the wellfare system is flawed, the only reason it is, IMO, is because its not enough.


 I am simply trying to show that (1) Yes the welfare system *is* flawed, and (2) The only reason it is flawed is not because its not enough.
Try not to put words in others mouths and we will all understand each other much better. I said nothing about "random, unplanned throwing". You perceived that as my feeligns towards your statement. I'm simply saying that to increase effectiveness of anything (welfare program or not) you need to do much more than simply increase it. Also, we disagree on wether or not the government should be responisble for feeding you, clothing you, housing you, and taking care of your children.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A universal health care plan doesn't affect quality. This argument is nothing but a bugbear planted by the insurance industry. They say things like "there will be no incentive to be the best" as if saving people's lives came secondary to making money. That's a load of BS. Talk to any health care professional, they are in it for the people. The reason the US has the highest quality health care is because we have the most money in the world plain and simple. Paul Wellstone cited numerous government reports that showed this and his arguments always were drowned out on the senate floor.


Seems you need to spend some time in big healthcare providers, I have and trust me, people aren't as saintly as you imagine. Quality of healthcare is affected by much more than the person supplying the care. Funding, resources, etc are all counting against quality. You just need to see the treatment of uninsured people as compaired to wealthy, insured individuals....yeha, money is deffinitley not the determining factor 

Your saying we have the best healthcare and yet we need to follow the lead of other countries? That doesn't make sense. We have the best healthcare because we have money, yes, but why would that quality of healthcare stay the same or (as you claim) increase after taking the money out of the situation?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A universal health plan isn't necessarily socialistic. The government bargains with private industries on the behalf of its citizens. The government is not creating a communistic system where private industry is abolished. Labling universal plans as socialistic is just more disinformation.


 I said nothing of communistic systems, lets not take what I said too far. Universal healthcare is exactly socialistic, your simply choosing to hear the negative implications of socialistic programs when I use the word. My point here though is "Why should the government have to bargain with private industries on behalf of its citizens"? I can bargain myself and get a much better deal for myself. And still be in control of my own life.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I can only do so much. As it is, I've dedicated my life to public service. The only difference is that I serve in a difference sector then health care. This suggestion is kind of cheap. I'd like to see what you actually do...


 Whoa now, lets not start challenging each other. I spend many, many hours a week volunteering my medical expertise (physical therapy, emergency medicine, lab work, phlebotomy even) for many clinics and healthcare providers. I'm even in school to get my masters in Physical Therapy to allow even more ability to help people. Would you keep doing exactly what your doing everyday if they stopped paying you? I would hope not, I would hope you would get a job to support your family first, then volunteer your time after that. But this discussion isn't about you or I, my point is that we should spend more time doing ourselves rather than expecting others to do. What someone else does doesn't affect my own deeds. I'm simply sayin we shouldnt expect the government to do something we ourselves aren't doing.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Its just a fundamental difference of opinion. I believe that the government is a tool of the people. I believe that people can use the government and our democracy to make a better society.


 Same as I. I just dont think the responsibility lies on the government as you do. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is not an either or argument. It is not black and white. And the separation between individual responsability and social in these instances is not easily discerned. If you say that providing food for yourself and your family is an individuals responsability, why don't you grow your own food? By depending on the farmer are you "passing the buck"? We are all intrincically linked in a society and when people are starving, sick, and poor, it effects us in thousands of ways. IT IS FAR MORE EXPENSIVE TO "PASS THE BUCK" ON THESE PROBLEMS THEN IT IS TO ADDRESS THEM! American is being nickled and dimed to death because 25% of this country lives in poverty.


 The seperation between individual and social responsibility doesn't need to be discerned in this case. What I'm saying is that the social responsibility should fall on individuals in a society, not the government. Providing is a word that your defining incorrectly. Providing food for my family doesn't mean growing it myself. I'm still providing it if I work for the money to buy it. Now, as a child, I did grow my own food, my whole family did...all of it. Eggs, milk, vegitables, meat....everything. So that arguement rings hollow to me. I'm in no way "passing the buck" of responsibility, that doesn't even make sense. How is purchasing a product from someone for my family passign the buck exactly? If I didn't have a job and no money you can bet your *** I would be growing my own food again, thats my point. We should go out and grow our own food before asking the government to give it to us. Thats my only point. Welfare is great and needed, but increasing welfare isn't going to make it more effective, period.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Um, that is not the intent of that Rage song. And in this instance, this vaunted freedom comes at the expense of millions.


 Actually it fits pretty close in line with that particular Rage song, but we can discuss the philosophy of Rage Againts the Machine lyrics elswhere. Freedom has allways come at the expense of many. To practice freedom isn't to ignore the sacrifice of others, niether is resitricting freedom lessenign the sacrifices of others. I agree with you that society as a whole should take care of its members who need help, I just dont agree that the government should step in and mandate that. Seems our disagreement is pretty small here.[SIZE=-1]

 [/SIZE] 





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> [SIZE=-1]There was an understanding between people...and there is no reason why this understanding can't be expanded into our greater society.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]
And no reason this understanding can't handle these issue you so quickly pass off to the government. Society does not = government as your implicating. Society can handle its collective responsibilty without governemnt interference. 
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
 [/SIZE] 





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> [SIZE=-1] Or it could be a lack of political power and money. How about the marginalization of their culture? Or how about our general ignorance? I wish that I could take every single person in this country through Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota. People just don't know or understand...[/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]
Thats exactly my point, the marginalization of theri culture which was to take care of their personal responsibilities and help those who needed help. I completely understand having spent lots of time at Pine Ridge reservation. I dont think having the government take up their personal responsibilities is going to help them start being responsible. You should understand what I mean, sometis still called "The White Man's Curse" by elders. 

[/SIZE] 





			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Not completely. Partially. This, too, is not black and white. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes. Get it straight...


 ACtually if you want to take responsibility for crime in poverty areas, thats fine. I on the other hand will not. A good friend of mine is a local LEO here and had some trouble with some "guests" from New Orleans. These particular guests were outspoken about their intent to stay here because its "fertile ground". They became violent when they were facing being removed from housing because they wouldn't take the proper steps to keep said housing. One packed up and headed to Houston for Rita so they could re-aply for FEMA aid. They were given housing, clothing, necessities, and all they had to do was take on the payments (extremely low with help from many programs. In fact quite lower than any payment I could get on a house or apartment for that matter) for the housing after a certain period of time. They didn't want to, in fact they slept in their Mercadees and Escalades outside the houses. My point is that not everyone is honest and hard working. To increase welfare isn't going to change that, we need revamping. I just dont think the answer is relying on the government.

7sm


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 10, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Agreed, however, how is someone who doesn' t have an address going to get a job? Someone without decent clothing?


 Thats a great point, and an important issue. However, its not an issue that will be solved by increasing welfare as a whole. I'm not sayin it will be solved by cutting welfare either, but simply increasing it is not helping these types of situations. There are organizations which have allready been discussed that deal with these things, those are tremendous helps. We just can't keep increasing welfare to solve problems with it.



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> The temporary welfare solution works if people will make it temporary, but here's the problem: if you're on welfare and in gov't housing and you manage to find work, they kick you off the program before you can amass enough liquid assets to obtain new housing (even an apartment), establish an emergency cash fund so it doesn't happen again, or get insured through your new job. So a person would be left with a job, a few dollars in his/her pocket, no insurance (probationary period), and no home. How does one work with no address, no place to wash clothing and get clean? You can't stay in a shelter for too long. So many people get sick and can't go to work because they have no place to stay, no insurance to get well, lose their job and they're back at square one.


 Thats not completely accurate, but again not something fixed by increasing. Addressing these internal issues is vital. We need to address these issues and determine ways to solve them, why just take the easy road and "hope" they resolve themselves by increasing welfare?



			
				shesulsa said:
			
		

> You know, nothing can be perfect, but I think most people really don't understand how powerful even the smallest act of volunteerism is. Volunteerism is the answer to many of our national and social woes. I wish I could find the pamphlet I used to have that said if every person who were able (by time, money and ability allotment) to volunteer did volunteer the equivalent of 15 minutes of their time twice per month (given the value of that person's time), need in this country would vanish. I wish I knew where those stats came from.


 Thats another great point. Volunteerism is not heavier or "more" government or welfare. If we as a society could find a way to do these kinds of things, need could truly vanish. Is ineffective government welfare going to do this, even if increased? I dont believe so.

7sm


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 10, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> I just dont think the responsibility lies on the government as you do.


 
I'm not going to mince words.  I've said enough, at length, at what I think needs to be done.  I am curious as to why you believe the government should stay out of the business of helping the poor?


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 10, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm not going to mince words. I've said enough, at length, at what I think needs to be done. I am curious as to why you believe the government should stay out of the business of helping the poor?


 I dont think the government should stay out of helping the poor, thats truley not what I'm trying to say. I've said welfare is great and heavily needed. I just dont think it should be a responsibility. The problems with welfare aren't going to be solved by increasing it. If more of us took personal responsibility for basic needs, things might be different. I just dont think the responsibility for basic needs and raising our children should fall on the governemnt.

7sm


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 10, 2005)

lol...sorry terry didn't know it would offend you so much

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27859&page=2


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> If more of us took personal responsibility for basic needs, things might be different. I just dont think the responsibility for basic needs and raising our children should fall on the governemnt.


 
How is a child suppose to be _personally responsible_ for their basic needs?  This question is the root of the cycle of poverty.  The answer is obvious.  They can't be.  And if their parents fail, what then?  Would it surprise you to know that the parents who failed their children were children of parents who failed?  It shouldn't.  And in many cases, the parents didn't fail at all.  They were victims of circumstance.

Once one actually understands how poverty works in our society, the idea above perpetuates that cycle, IMO.  We don't need more wellfare.  We need better social programs that build a base that breaks this cycle.  Food and shelter subsidies.  Universal health plans.  Fully subsidized education.  Subsidized childcare.  Living wages.  These programs will break that cycle for a great many people.  Not everyone, but many, many, more then we have now.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 11, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> How is a child suppose to be _personally responsible_ for their basic needs? This question is the root of the cycle of poverty. The answer is obvious. They can't be. And if their parents fail, what then? Would it surprise you to know that the parents who failed their children were children of parents who failed? It shouldn't. And in many cases, the parents didn't fail at all. They were victims of circumstance.
> 
> Once one actually understands how poverty works in our society, the idea above perpetuates that cycle, IMO. We don't need more wellfare. We need better social programs that build a base that breaks this cycle. Food and shelter subsidies. Universal health plans. Fully subsidized education. Subsidized childcare. Living wages. These programs will break that cycle for a great many people. Not everyone, but many, many, more then we have now.


 Yes, but your now changing your story. I have said I agree that welfare is needed and I agree that we need better social programs. You have been saying (1) Welfare needs to be increased and (2) social programs = government envolvement. Now you seem to be changing that story. I dont agree with your solution of universal healthcare and such, but since you are now no longer holding to this:


			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> If the wellfare system is flawed, the only reason it is, IMO, is because its not enough.


 Then I guess we actually agree with the main issue here. The differences in solution are minute really. I dont think the government should play a major role in it, but thats details.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Nov 11, 2005)

The government needs to play some role.  I do think the apparatus behind the welfare etc. system has gotten quite large and we should look at that, but there's a need for a basic safety net for the truly disabled or those in temporary financial distress.

Looking at how many bankruptcies are caused by medical costs, I think we shoyld look at spending more of our money on universal health care.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 11, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> but there's a need for a basic safety net for the truly disabled or those in temporary financial distress.


 That I think is agreed upon by all here. How to do that is the issue.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> Looking at how many bankruptcies are caused by medical costs, I think we shoyld look at spending more of our money on universal health care.


 Universal healthcare is not the only solution. Someone earlier in the thread made a mention of people who only look at one solution. Lets explore other more effective strategies before just throwing all our eggs in the universal basket.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Nov 11, 2005)

Universal health care has a lot of problems to be ironed out, as we can see when we look at Canada or the U.K.; they each have certain advantages over our system in the U.S., but also certain disadvantages. But while universal health care may not be the fix, I think it's hard to separate welfare from the fact that the cost of health care helps drive poverty, and is a major factor in keeping people poor. I believe that more than half of all personal bankruptcies have a significant health care costs component...health care and child care costs are a big part of why we need this. I see it as a large part of the root of the problem.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 11, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> but there's a need for a basic safety net for the truly disabled or those in temporary financial distress.





			
				7starmantis said:
			
		

> That I think is agreed upon by all here. How to do that is the issue.


We already do. It's called SSI.  People who are disabled permanently can apply for this - but this is another imperfect system where people who can't walk because of permanent hip injury can't get on it but drug addicts can.  Another can of worms.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 11, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> > Yes, but your now changing your story. I have said I agree that welfare is needed and I agree that we need better social programs. You have been saying (1) Welfare needs to be increased and (2) social programs = government envolvement. Now you seem to be changing that story. I dont agree with your solution of universal healthcare and such, but since you are now no longer holding to this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 11, 2005)

The lack of willingness to look at any other angle than a personal one is staggering here. Misquoting and ad hominem attacks do not make a point. I'm really tired of this discussion altogether. We can see we will not agree here, I guess its back to the drawing board.

7sm


----------



## arnisador (Nov 11, 2005)

Well, we see why the problem is so tough to solve. Everyone wants people to be fed, but everyone has a very different opinion of what's the best way to see it done. If economics was a true science, we could predict the outcome of various strategies just as we plot the courses of planets...but that ain't so.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Nov 12, 2005)

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." 

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money." 

"The man who asks of freedom anything other than itself is born to be a slave." 

"Americans are so enamoured of equality they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom." 

"The principal cause of disparities in the fortunes of men is intelligence." 

Alexis de Tocqueville


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 18, 2005)

The sad, sad truth is that private charity is never enough to solve the enormous problem of mass poverty and hunger.  It never has been and it never will be, because humans are selfish folk.  The welfare system has solved much of the abject poverty in this nation and, again, is NOT a perfect system.

But then, what IS a perfect system?  I think this depends on each person's point of view.  Some of us see value in extending a hand to our fellow man, can see that some people will never be able to work, welcome those spiritual rewards one gets when giving selflessly - others just think it's more damaging to help people in this position, even when they can't work it seems they are still supposed to get a job or live with a relative or mooch from a church rather than the working populus at large.  Some of us try to work all angles.

There is no perfect solution but for those who have to give.  What a damn shame we must be forced to.


----------



## bushi jon (Nov 18, 2005)

I have statement we should not be feeding people we should be teaching them how to feed themselves. Welfare may be good as a short term for a small% of the people but in the long term it will destroy us. Welfare has been abused just like ssi has been abused and we need to fix it then replace it.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 18, 2005)

Social Security has been abused by the government....if they would not take out "loans" from it then they would not have all these IOU's to it. It should have never been allowed to be borrowed from and and it should have been put into some type of  interest baring account. The government has destroyed that system themselves more than anything else.

So you don't need to feed children and elderly. Like I said before an overwhelming majority are children and elderly who are on the system. The next percentage is the disabled. People that can work make up a very small percentage of who is on welfare.

Cash assistance has a 5 year MAX. You can only attend the doctor 18 times a year....and they want you to get a referral to go to the ER. Sorry if someone has an emergency I'm not going to bother calling the doctor and trying to get them to give a referral. Food Stamps can only be used on FOOD. Most states are going to a card based system that seperates things that are not able to be purchased from the card. If people abuse this then it is their own fault. Not the fault of the ones who have had a very tough break and are trying to get back on their feet. The abuses of this system are costing less than the abuses in government crap. Like the bridge to nowhere..and many other things. Maybe look at that and stop those items, then see what else needs cut. I will never be in favor of cutting this system until the government quits spending on useless crap.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Nov 18, 2005)

Oh yeah and to illistrate another point about gov....the PA government tried to vote themselves a 54% raise in pay....that comes from the PA tax dollars. Yet they are having all these arguements on what to cut and how to ballance the budget......I know this is only state level but it is a good example of the stupidity of government sometimes.


----------



## Ray (Nov 18, 2005)

It is wrong for the government to take our money and give it to others.  But it is necessary for the gov't to do so because we aren't taking care of others of our own volition.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 18, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> It is wrong for the government to take our money and give it to others. But it is necessary for the gov't to do so because we aren't taking care of others of our own volition.



But do two wrongs really make a right?

7sm


----------



## Ray (Nov 18, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> But do two wrongs really make a right?


Don't ask me---I'm sure there are some truely hungry people who {through no fault of their own} have been fed via welfare---ask them.


----------



## 7starmantis (Nov 18, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Don't ask me---I'm sure there are some truely hungry people who {through no fault of their own} have been fed via welfare---ask them.



Thats not what I'm getting at. Its feeding people thats not in debate. But I was curious as to your supporting something you believe is wrong. Just curious as to how you see that.

7sm


----------



## bushi jon (Nov 18, 2005)

The goverment is not evil the people we vote in maybe.


----------



## Ray (Nov 19, 2005)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> But I was curious as to your supporting something you believe is wrong. Just curious as to how you see that.


I wouldn't call myself a supporter of gov't welfare.  There are lots of things that the gov't spends tax money on that I don't support, but I haven't given much time trying to change it.

On the other hand, I hate to see people who are starving and homeless; I had two brothers that recently died on the streets and I'd say it was their own fault...but there are plenty of people who are in poverty through no fault of their own.

There's disagreement on how best to help people and sometimes even if people should be helped in the first place.  I've got to believe that someone, somewhere is really needy and is being helped by welfare - gov't welfare may be a long way from perfect, but it's something I'm not going to try to put an end to--unless I could come up with a better way to help those who need help.


----------



## bushi jon (Nov 19, 2005)

I would have to say this has been a good forum. I am glad to see there was no name calling.


----------



## Loki (Nov 19, 2005)

I live in a welfare state, and I think it has it's merits and demerits.

A famous journalist recently conveyed an interesting calculation he called the "Falafel Calculation" that showed that a family of five earning one minimum wage salary a month and living in the street, still can't afford a month's-worth of the minimum requirement of falafel for everyone (falafel being one of the cheapest available foods that require no preparation). And if you can't afford falafel, you can't afford to learn, get an education, and you find yourself stuck in the same cycle. Should these people not be given welfare?

In contrast, we have the orthodox religious, who choose a life of studying the bible under government sponsorship. These people don't get an education, don't work, don't serve in the army like everyone else, and answer every criterion for the description "parasite". Should these people be given welfare?

All in all, I think welfare should be carefully regulated, used only when needed and not dispensed like chocolate bunnies on Easter.


----------

