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

Remove all ads!

That was skilfully done, Rags, I'm impressed.

The question that comes into my mind is this -- does a society owe its citizens anything? Answer, yes. A society, as represented by its government in some cases, is obligated to provide basic security and safeguard the "inaliable" rights that can so often be alienated by a tyranny. Modern people are wholeheartedly in favor of the society giving them what they feel they deserve.

The converse is also true, though. Individuals owe their society certain things. Now we've all seen what happens when an overly aggressive society demands too much from the individuals that comprise it -- 20th century examples of dysfunctional, totalitarian societies abound. But despite these examples and the trumpetting of personal rights that accompanies their re-telling, the fact remains that people need to meaningfully contribute to their societies.

They also must refrain from taking too much from the society or expecting the society to consistently support them despite a legion of bad choices and anti-social behaviours. The example always used is one that I've seen myself -- my idiot brother used it all the time. "I've got 4 kids so the rules don't apply to me." We educate the snot out of our kids about sex and tell them that they have every right to do anytying they want with their bodies and then pay lip service to the accompanying responsibilities. These kids grow up and proceed to have kids and then come running to the government and say "it was NONE of your business when we were having sex, but now that we have kids, it's ALL YOUR responsibility, society, to support them, because I can't." The lack of logic used by these greedy, self-indulgent idiots takes my breath away.

Bottom line, giving a leg up to those who need it is vital for a society to be healthy. Constantly making excuses for a pathetic minority who are obsessed with their own rights and care nothing for the rights of others is toxic.

 

I simply have a problem with the government taking my money and giving it to someone else. Period. I earned that money and I should be able to use it in the way I see fit. As it is, my life is made more difficult because the government sees fit to give my money to others. I find that reprehensible. If I forcibly took money from you and gave it to someone else, that would be theft. Why isn't it classified as theft when the government does it? It's no different.

Despite the lucid remarks on this board, I don't see any change forthcoming. The more people feeding at the public trough, the less likely for the various programs to be done away with. Imagine the squealing when the trough is removed. Also, the more people that are on the government dole, the more power the government possesses. The government will NEVER relinquish that power. Its only goal is to increase its power. All governmnents throughout history have been the same. It's simply the nature of government.

As much as I despise the idea of welfare, I realize full well that it isn't going away anytime soon. The fact that we are now urban dwellers rather than rural dwellers means that some degree of welfare is inevitable. People are quite simply less self-sufficient than they used to be. They can't rely upon their neighbors because they don't know their neighbors and their neighbors don't care. They can't kill or grow their own food either. The best we can do then is to limit it as much as possible.

Oh, and nobody seems to have really touched on corporate welfare, subsidies and the like. What do we do about those? I don't have the numbers, but I would wager that these constitute the largest piece of the welfare pie by far.

Also, don't get me started on the large impact illegal immigration has on this subject.

 

You know, welfare programs have actually proven to greatly reduce real theft (you know, the kind where people actually steal your stuff). Apparently, when people don't worry about how they are going to pay their rent and put food on their tables, they don't steal stuff as often. Welfare programs help more than just their recipients. Crime and homelessness are not good for the economy, and both will go up without welfare programs in place.

 

One thing I know is that this idea of welfare being abused to such a great extent that most people receiving it are unworthy is a sham. People abuse any system, everywhere all the time that doesnt mean that most do it or even very many. These myths and urban legends about people driving beemers while being on welfare or watching cable on their big screen TV:s are getting very very old.

First off, any society will have a percentage of "human waste" to put it as callous as possible. These are the people that will never amount to anything and will most likely beget children that will never amount to anything. You can handle these people in many ways, you can try to force them to amount to something at great expense and little success, you can completely ignore them and hope they die in a corner somewhere but even these people have a sense of self preservation and will most likely get by through stealing your car stereo and mugging your grandmother or you can give them a modest sum of money so they can sit on their asses watchinh TV while eating cheap bonbons bothering no one. These are the people that tend to be noticed that tend to be brought forward why welfare is abused and shouldnt exist. Baloney, it is much cheaper to keep them housed and fed than to have them running aronud causing havoc.

Then we have the people who for some reason or another are down and out, string of bad luck, depression, couple of bad choices but for whom there is hope. Support them for a time while they get their act together and they will repay the favour.

As for the discussion about single mothers, the US would be able to gain SO much by a more advanced and subsidized childcare. As it is now it is impossible for a single parent to work in anything but the most high end jobs while also paying for daycare. In Sweden *everyone* can afford daycare. The fees scale with your salary from nothnig up to a cap of 100-200$ a month or so (dnot got exact numbers in my head) which actually allows those single mothers to take that 8$ an hour job, getting into the job market, making a contribution not to mention it employs a truckload of people in daycare

 

@ joacqin , most may not abuse it (as in 50% or higher), however there is a large percentage that do.
like i have said, if you wish to come to n.c. i can take you to dozens of govt assisted housing where it looks like a luxury car dealership

on the single mother issue, i have no problem helping someone with welfare , HOWEVER, when they continue to have child after child while on welfare, then i have a problem.

tangent issue, a good friend is a deputy sheriff, he was telling me about all the warrants he had on this one guy. the gentleman had 11 separate warrants for non-payment of child support from 8 different women. all of whom lived in the same govt assisted housing complex.

when he told me the guys name & showed me his picture, i realised that this individual was a customer at one of the conv. stores i managed at the time. i told my buddy where i had heard him say that he lived(he was trying to pick up some girl in the store one night)

when they finally arrested him, he had a fairly large amount of crack packaged for sale on him.
hmmm, guess that explains all the money he liked to flash.
oh yeah , did i mention that the apartment he was living at was a govt assisted apartment?

personally, i think if you get caught & proven to have defrauded welfare or abused any govt assistance program you should be banned from receiving any assistance FOREVER
if that means you starve on the street, oh well

tough love
when people start taking responsibliity for their own actions than we will have less people wanting handouts from the govt

sorry for all the rambling however this is a subject i fell strongly about

 

If this were true, then you'd have no problem providing real, verifiable examples. You are going to have to provide some real, verifiable proof to back up a statement like this.....meaning a lot more than just one apocryphal stories. To argue that "a large percentage of people abuse welfare", you are going to need lots of true examples. If you are somehow able to provide the the mountains of empirical evidence that would exist if abuse were as common as you say, then I'll gladly concede your point.

 

Yes, and we know how successful Jamestown was as a colony. I think their charter was even reovked by King George. Wasn't it Smith who was saved by an Indian gal, or some such story?

BTW, I'm all for welfare, as are the CEOs and shareholders of Lockheed, Boeing, Tenet Healthcare, Pfizer, and of course, the big one - Hallibuton. Mr Taxpayer: Don't forget that Halli has a double "L" when making out your Income Tax check....We wouldn't want your tax dollars to go to the wrong "people," now would we?

 

Um, sorry mate; you're not a 'libertarian' you're an anarchist - essentially, you oppose the principle of government in that ALL of them are communal sharing of assets and resources for the benefit of ALL members.

Essentially, the government isn't stealing money from you; it's taking payment for services it gives you - ones you choose to ignore. I suppose if you don't like the membership fees, you can always leave the club - move off to somewhere where there isn't some oppressive government 'stealing' the food out of its citizen's mouths.

But you'd better get used to beating your own path, since there's likely not to be any maintained roads (let alone pavement). Search long and hard for a safe water supply, since treatment plants don't crop outta nowhere. And you'd better be an able carpenter/plumber/electrician since there'll be no building codes to enforce the hired labour of those you get to do it for you (and if you think there's a lot of 'renovation contractor scam-artists' now WITH codes and...some enforcement, wait until you check out your governmentless society).

Then that brings us to the issue of how you're going to KEEP all the assets you have - better stay at home 24/7 to watch over your stuff since there'll be no law enforcement doing that for you. But wait! How can you feed yourself if you're not going out and working for that 'hard-earned salary'? Nevermind, I doubt any decent-paying employers would locate in such a locale without any 'corporate welfare'...

And don't get sick, because I'm SURE there'll be a TON of 'doctors' waiting to charge you fees for gimcrack panaceas, since there'll be no enforcement of standards of medical practice.

But anyways, it'll all be moot, because such a chaotic vacuum won't exist for long - just until a neighbouring governed nation decides not to put up with the strife going on at its frontier (and likely drifting across their borders - the ungoverned tend not to pay heed to silly rules like borders) and will just mobilize it's standing military and take actions to preserve the safety of their citizens.

If you expect anything tangible to arise from a discussion by a group of people whose common quality is playing of fantasy computer games, you're far more naive than I expected - I gotta find me some Libertarians and start selling major landmarks to 'em!

Aye, I agree with all of this paragraph; I just have doubts as to how any of it is a bad thing...a powerful government can exert more influence in the world stage and do more for the benefit and welfare of its citizens.

Well...MOSTLY urban dwellers; there ARE some rurals, but you gotta look carefully for them.

Yep, that's the foundation of a society - a group of individuals that cannot survive on their own, and must organize their efforts for the good of the whole.

Um, what does THIS have to do with the rest of the paragraph? When does this relate to contemporary people's lack of self-sufficiency?

Well, I've already discussed the 'no longer self-sufficent/now interdependent' bit; lemme change gears and deal with the 'urban alienation' tack: (please bear with me while I reiterate)

Why shouldn't they rely on them? (nvm, answered in subordinate clauses) Why don't they know them? And why don't THEY care about the first people?

WHY does someone feel they should ignore the other people and families that dwell only a layer of gypsum board away?

As far as I can tell, this is a vicious cycle of "they shun me so I'll shun them" by all parties involved; I've seen it happen, and YES have fallen prey to it myself.

But the only solution to it is to BE THE ONE THAT BREAKS THE CYCLE, and the results are usually surprising - usually one's neighbours are just as 'lonely' feeling they have to isolate themselves, and subsequently eager to interact.

Currently, my wife and I live in a basement apartment. We know our landlord & -lady personally, and cooperate with each other beyond the renter/tenant relationship; I provide periodic computer 'guru'ism to them, and they provide me with shared internet access for an affordable fee (the ISP's 'multiple IP' service fee). I help the pensioner out with mowing or shoveling snow and he offers an occasional lift to work when the weather is inclement. They have us up for dinner once a month or so, and my wife shares some of the cookies she bakes as a hobby (one she picked up from kuemper - thanks for making my waistline grow! )

Admittedly the 'excuse' for not "getting to know the neighbours" is what if they're bad people? which holds up GREAT to the counter-question "How will you ever know whether they are or not unless you go find out?"

When I lived in Calgary in the mid-nineties, I befriended several neighbouring tenants - with the encouragement and assistance of my roommates. I also discovered that the people living in the house next to my apartment building were in fact 'illegal vendors of controlled substances'. No harm ever came of either relationship - I distanced myself from the house, but at least I had a better reason than 'they MIGHT be bad'.

This urban alienation seems to stem from the old human fear of the unknown, which has LONG preceded society and government, so we can hardly heap the blame for this on either's doorstep.

Aye, I'm equally sure this is true, and though it often annoys me, I do recall that a lot of this 'bribery' is used to encourage corporate establishment of its job-making operations within the government's boundaries, and not off in some other region, thus providing employment for at least some of its citizens. Remember all that 'hard-earned money' you hate the government "thieving" from you? Who gave it to you again?

Yes, because it's INARGUABLE that NO 'undocumented foreigner' EVER does ANYTHING to help themselves, but instead INVARIABLY seeks to make themselves essentially an adult 'ward of the state'. They NEVER secure ANY form of legitimate money-earning....apart from that nearly infinitesimal minority of 'illegals' who then hoard all the GOOD, well-paying jobs from proper citizens - all the 'illegal' doctors, lawyers, corporate executives and the like, raking in piles of cash every salary period...

 

All together now, children: "The plural of anecdote is not data"

 

@ drew, how about the fact that i saw it day in & day out for years. first when i was with the sheriff's department & then as a regional manager for a conv. store chain.
it was one of the many reasons i got out of law enforcement.
you would go to the same housing complexes over and over. you would try to report it(the welfare type abuse) & you would be told that it wasn't a priority
hell, it was like trying to get I.N.S. to come pick up illegals we had rounded up. if you had less than 15 or more than about 30, they always had a reason why they couldn't take them.
granted, this was before 9-11, but from what i've seen & heard from all the friends i still have in law enforcement it hasn't changed.
being at a store for 12-14 hrs in a day you would see the same people in the store 9,10,11 times a day buying beer/wine & wraps, blunts(i'm not talking a pack, i'm talking 5 & 6 full boxes of 5 or 10 packs of 5blunts each)
or a whole display of 25-30 little novelty roses(the glass tubes were used to smoke crack)
i made sure we quit carrying those even before the county banned their sell

personal experiance drew, thats how i know its widespread
however i know this will never convince you as you seem to be just like some of the federal judges we dealt with.
no matter what the person we arrested had done it wasn't their fault.
they had a poor childhood or they were discriminated against or the little boy down the block got a nicer bike for christmas so of course they had to cave his head in with a bat to get it.

god, i just absolutely despise people who want accept responsibility(not saying you are that way drew however some of your writings seem to lean that way)

ask anyone who posts here who is or was a L.E.O.
they all have horror stories as bad or worse
why do you think the turnover rate is so high?

 

This thread reminds me both of why I hate right wing political ideals and why I've been avoiding the Alleys (and most other political discussion) recently. Urgh.

 

Not good enough. Examples have names. They are documented and readily available. And, frankly, unless you are a social worker or have access to all their files, you really aren't in a position to determine whether or not someone is abusing welfare.

 

As someone that's been actively looking for a job since June last year, I'd be homeless now if it weren't for welfare. So yeah, I support it but I'd support it regardless of my current situation.

 

Aik -- how is this a right-wing political ideal? Most of the comments presented here are either in support of welfare or so far out that even the most conservative people on the boards are crying 'foul.'

If you don't like it here, why even make a comment.

Martaug: the 'shift' key ... please. 'Enter' is used at the end of a paragraph (twice is good), not at the end of every sentence. Such things will make your comments easier to read and your arguments easier to follow. You've obviously taken some time in putting the argument together, just a bit more will help us understand it better.

Drew: Examples do not always have names. In fact, using names for such examples can be considered a invasion of privacy -- or even slander. Murtaug has valid points, I may disagree with the conclusions he draws, but the points are still valid (even without naming anyone).

 

There is allways a problem with welfare and black market labour. Some people who do black market labour lift at the same time welfare support. There is of course two criminals in this the employee and the employer, the employer being the bigger evil in this case. I don't have statistics about this but it has been a problem in this country for years. This is about the only situation where I see someone getting rich with welfare and even then it's a stretch. The jobs at the black market are usually not the most well paid ones unless we are talking about outright criminal activity.

So there definently is some abuse in welfare, most don't do it that I'm sure of but this is not as rare as one would hope. It has lessened somewhat in the recent years but during the 90:ies recession it was a huge problem in this country.

[ July 13, 2007, 19:22: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

I have to agree with T2Bruno. I always get irked when people give evidence from their own experience and someone says, in effect, "some scientist in Princeton didn't sign off on this, so what you saw is invalid."

The fact is that the system can be ripped off. People in Martaug's position have seen it done (and Drew, when Idjits like my brother in law are on EI for MONTHS on end and then he goes to Hawaii, I don't need to see his file to know he's a lying piece of slime that lives off the worksweat of decent, hardworking people, just like I don't need a doctor's diagnosis when there's an icepick in my head. It's painfully obvious.)

As I have stated before, giving help to the deserving is wonderful. Enabling freeloading from the few who abuse the system is not. As for judgementalism, I normally don't care what people do with their lives, got enough trouble dealing with my own. HOWEVER, once the money that I have earned is under discussion, then I have every right to judge the people taking it if I have reason to believe they are doing so under false pretenses.

 

My boss comes from a part of Louisiana where white people were a substantial minority. This guy has explained to me several things from his "experience", which he claims to be more valid than any "statistic". Among them:

And that's just a few of the things he's had to say on matters of race. Here's the rub.....while this guy's beliefs are offensive, crude and....well....just wrong, there's actually a reason beyond simple ignorance that he has them. He grew up in the civil rights era, and when he was growing up, this guy was regularly beaten up (he was once even knifed in the hallway of his High School) for being white. His entire family was subjected to discrimination because, where he grew up, they were a very tiny minority. Growing up, he had a very hard life, and it's actually quite amazing that he was able to make something of himself at all. In light of the hard life this guy had growing up, I can almost understand why he's so prejudiced.

Now, to my point. Empirical data doesn't have an innate bias. Experience, however, does. Ask any police officer or medical professional if more violent or bizarre crime happens on full moons. They will invariably say that, from their experience, it does. They will also be wrong. Empirical data has shown that crime on full moon days is just as high as any other day of the month. Police officers and medical professionals, having a pre-concieved notion that more crime does happen on a full moon, always remember the cases that happen on a full moon, all the while failing to notice that just as many weird, bizarre, or violent crimes happen any other day. This is why I trust empirical data and hold personal experiences under great suspicion. One man's experience can very easily be another man's bias. Empirical data, on the other hand, is....well....empirical data.

We have statistics that track everything....and there is data about flagrant welfare abuse readily available to anyone who bothers to look. For example, no one has brought up the FLDS church in Colorado city, where a single polygamous family (legally...though it's shady) is able to bleed the system in excess of 20K per year. That's clearly an abuse of the system that needs to be stopped (but, short of legalizing polygamy, I don't know if it would actually be possible to close this loophole). There are other statistics available as well. The government has organizations whose job is to track welfare recipients and ferret out examples of people defrauding the system. They keep statistics and post them as well (although they aren't easy to find). Abuses can and do happen. A small minority certainly do abuse the system and the empirical data will bear this out. I'm convinced, however, that the reasons that far right politicians trying to claim that the abuse is systemic and extremely common fail to present empirical data to support their claims not because they are lazy, but because the empirical data doesn't support their claims.

[ July 14, 2007, 00:28: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

There are definitely more cases of welfare abuse than we can prove, but my problem is with arguing that welfare abuse is extremely common without any real evidence to support it is really pushing it. We need to give welfare recipients the benefit of the doubt, here.

What does "abuse" mean, here, anyway? Are we talking about attempts at defrauding the system or are we painting with a broader brush? Sure, there are people who legally exploit loopholes in the system for their own benefit (I even provided what is likely the most egregious example available of such abuse, myself), but shouldn't we just close the loopholes when we find such circumstances?

I think T2 has brought up the most eloquent argument regarding the real problem inherent in welfare.....that the benefits don't taper. A $.50 per hour raise can mean you get cut off.....costing you hundreds of dollars a month.....even more if you lose your title 19 or food stamps as well. Is a person who refuses a promotion which would cost his family their benefits (in effect, causing him to lose as much as $600 a month in food, housing, and other aid like title 19) guilty of abusing the system? I say not. I say that such a person is being stifled and trapped by the system. When a pay raise results in a net loss, it's the system that's the problem.