Welfare is it wrong?

[shesulsa]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.