Welfare
 

This has been bugging me fore a couple of weeks (though it floats around in the back of my head from time to time). I've bounced the question off a few friends, but kind of curious what others think about it.

Why do we give perfectly healthy adult citizens money, food and housing? Children, those with disabilities (mental or physical), and the elderly, I can understand, to a point, but why the remainder of adults?

What responsibility do we, as a society (or as individuals) have to this group of people?

Everyone has a right to do (or not do) whatever they want, as long as it does not negatively impact someone else (without their consent). Taxes for defense, roads, even environmental concerns directly impact each individual, and (usually) does so in a positive manner (security, ease of transportation, clean air), so how does welfare benefit the whole of society?

So what good comes from welfare?


Personally, I don't like welfare. That said, I have an issue with allowing any child to come in harms way due to the actions of their parents (or the state, depending on who is caring for them). I really don't think society does a very good job with children right now; too many other things are prioritized ahead of children.

Probably no good comes from it, but we do it because we care.

I don't care much for the whole welfare thing myself, but every once in a while a family comes along that truly needs some help. So we give them foodstamps, advice & housing.

And I guess that makes up for the others who abuse the system.

The alternative is setting up workhouses, sending them to prison, or:

HM

I may be wrong, but it sounds like you are setting up an either/or situation.

Either we set up forced labor/workhouse/prisons, or people will die. If that is what you are saying, I don't agree. It is not that simple.

Nor does it answer my main question: What good comes from welfare?

Blue

This is my biggest problem! There are people in need, who choose to be in need, and there are people in need because they have exhausted all other options.

I don't really have a problem with welfare in that situation.

I do have a question though Blue: what percentage of people "abuse the system" vs those that "truly needs some help"?

The thing is...you'll never truly know, unless you know someone that has personally that has abused the system. I know of some who did abuse, and I know of some who were on the system, and used it to help get off of welfare.

It seems as though the media and those who are anti-welfare tend to put the spotlight on those who abuse the system and not shed a whole lot of light on those who actually managed to get off of public assistance. And since I know more who used the welfare to better themselves, I don't pay any mind to those who abuse it. They only make those who need it look bad.

I believe that the benefits of welfare that affect the society as a whole are...

wait. I just thought of something, What if the Government gave welfare as an exchange of something else? like you had to do community service or work for either the government or a non-profit organization. Thus both parties are benefited.

OK, here's the hardcore capitalist answer to you question.

I believe in a free market. I believe that the greatest benefit to society comes from people being rewarded for taking risks, for innovating, and generally engaging in the task of making themselves profitable. I don’t think this is just good for the individual, I believe it is the most equitable and just way to construct a society.

But I also believe that, by creating at least a minimal safety net, we create a situation wherein people are able to take more risks. They may fail, but that failure will not be fatal. With more people taking more risks, particularly entrepreneurial risks, we have a more robust economy, and that rising tide benefits everyone.

So, I’m still a capitalist, but I believe it is in my self-interest to mitigate some of the risks associated with a free-economy workplace.

[note] this is not an argument for our social programs as they are currently constituted, but just an argument for the idea of some sort of social welfare as part of a robust capitalism.[/note]

Why do we give perfectly healthy adult citizens money, food and housing?

A couple of years ago a study was released that attempted to answer this question, because the usual public response is that it is madness to give people money who won't work for it. We read up on this as part of our understanding of the concerns over the national debt, welfare, and where money goes.

The findings of the study were interesting: the people who were on welfare wanted to return to work and more than one in ten people who were part of the study that began welfare one year prior were no longer on welfare and had become a productive part of society. By finding work and becoming a productive part of society again, they had more than repaid, in taxes, the money they had been given by the government. It was found that the detrimental effects of the people who remained on welfare longer than one year and beyond were far outweighed by the positive effects of those who returned to the workforce. The stereotypical "living on welfare bum" recipient did exist in the study and we found that some do take advatage, but without it a large group of people would have remained stagnent in their employment status.

According to the study, these are the reasons the government provides welfare -- the positive effects to the economy and society were much greater than the money invested.

I am going to ask a really dumb question.What does everyone mean by welfare? I know there's social security for old folks and the disabled, there's assistance for single Mom's with kids who are low income, and there's unemployment insurance which is usually limited to less than a year. Is everyone lumping these programs together under the term "welfare'? Is there some other program out there I don't knowabout???

Kitsune - Any chance you might have a link to that. I do not doubt you; I would just like to see that data (or if you have a name for the report, I might be able to track it down).

If there is a societal benefit, which can include, but is not limited to economic benefits, then it has its place.

I think the concept of a "welfare queen" is so emblazoned in peoples (mine at least) minds, that is corrupts their opinion.

I also think there is another branch to this negative mind set. How many people have had positive experiences with federal and state agencies? My personal experiences have been adequate as best, and negative in more than one instance. So in my mind, the negative bureaucratic experience leads me to believe there is rampant corruption, and given that on any given day, you can read about some scandal or poor treatment of an individual, one could easily assume this is the case.

Tomas - you have a great idea, and it could work, save for the aforementioned corruption and abuse. What bothers me is that if you allow corporate america to run the training side (which I believe would be more productive), and have the government handle the income redistribution, then where is the oversight? If it is not apparent by now, the government cannot keep itself in check, and corporate america can buy the government.

If we set aside the obvious moral obligations (and that is really a very large issue), what is so wrong with letting the very bottom layer of our social strata fend for themselves? Mind you, I do not include most welfare recipients in this group.

I guess though, we already do this; those who are stuck in a poor education system, the homeless, even those who work, but cannot afford to live, they are all left to fend for themselves. So where do we draw the line between who it is ok to ignore, and who we should help?

Maybe the cut off line should be higher. If a person cannot find some kind of employment on their own, then they cannot receive any governmental aid. This would mean more funding for those who are able to work, and perhaps, with some help from the government; underemployed individuals would be able to live a reasonably comfortable life.

Then again, if the line was lower, say that anyone who is willing to work (any kind of work), will get paid, and will get paid a wage which they can survive on (maybe something like the CCC, or the WPA). The federal government is already the nation’s largest employer, what would be so bad about making it a little larger? Would it really be that much more of a burden (tax wise) for those with "gainful" (for lack of a better word) employment?

marichiko - I personally put any type of government assistance in the broad category of welfare. Anything from federal housing assistance, WIC, unemployment, to food stamps and , earned income tax credit. In my mind, at least, this is all welfare.

If my money is taken from me, and given to others who are percieved to be in need, then it is welfare.

Kitsune - Any chance you might have a link to that. I do not doubt you; I would just like to see that data (or if you have a name for the report, I might be able to track it down).

I'd actually love to and will see if I can contact my old prof and have him dig it up or look through my notes if I can find them. It was a very interesting collection of studies and also included an analysis of why state governments give students financial aid. The general idea is that students that graduate tend to stay in the area and return the money invested in them by the state.

Needless to say, a massive argument errupted between students on this. The classroom quickly divided in half and some shouting matches were escalated. When the study on where National Debt is owed to came out, it only got worse.

Damn, I miss those classes -- they were fun!

I agree that a certain number of people take advantage of the system. This is human nature and no system is perfect. I don't know what the real numbers are, but let's say its as high as one in ten. Would you feel society should with hold help to all ten because of that one bum?

Another question. Suppose you have a person who is highly trained or educated and wants to work, or even a common laborer who wants to work, but that person has an illness or condition which prevents them from doing so. Would it be in society's best interest to give that person the medical care and voc-rehab which would allow them to get back on their feet and earn money (and pay taxes) again?

Final question. Does a culture have any obligation to its senior citizens who have worked all their lives and now are too old to do so? There are many working class people out there who work low paying jobs that have no pension plans. These folks work hard, raise their kids and are unable to save very much toward old age. Once these peoples' usefulness as workers is at end, what should society do with them?

The people taking advantage of the system are the ones in the bureaucracies which routinely take 2/3rds of the money intended for the various programs.

O.C., I just wanted to define what we are talking about. WIC and AFDC fall under assistance to low income parents which I mentioned. In my state, able bodied adults who get food stamps are required to sign up for work programs like through Good Will. I suppose this would be called "work fare." I don't know how food stamps are distributed in other states.

I was never in a shelter and never stated that I was. However, I was homeless for about 4 months. I chose to camp on my own in the National Forest rather than go into a shelter.

In my state, anyhow, it is very difficult for a person in need to find out about the programs that might be helpful to them. Social workers from one agency to the next have no idea what other agencies offer, and don't bother to find out. Sometimes they don't even know what's available in their own agency. Example:

I was down at the local community health service standing in line behind a young single mother with a sick baby. She was trying to get her child into a doctor. The woman at the counter told her that there was a mix up on the medicaid paper work and until that was resolved, they would not treat her child. The young mother was in tears. She had ridden the city bus almost an hour to get there, holding her baby who hap a temp of 102 degrees. The worker told her to go to the hospital emergency room which was another 45 minute bus ride away. Actually, that community health center has a walk in critical care unit which was only 5 minutes away and accepts anybody - insurance or not - for only a $5.00 fee. The emergency room visit costs hundreds of dollars which in the case of this young mother and child, the tax payer will foot the bill for.

I told the Mom about the critical care unit around the block and offered to drive her and her child there. She was so greatful, but she never would have known of this service if I hadn't told her.

By the way, in one thread you take me to task for making assumptions, and then you seem to get irritated when I politely ask what people are defining as welfare, so that I can respond appropriately. What's up with that?

Looks like welfare to me
 

Farm Subsidy recipient list for my zipcode. Of the top 20 I see two local businessmen, three large scale ranchers and three lawyers. I know we must protect our agriculture industry, but some of the people getting subsidies are not the ones that need it.

AFDC is now known as TANF. The Federal government gives block grants to the states, who in turn develop their own programs and distribute their grants as they see fit. This came about as a result of the welfare reforms of the 1990s.

"Perceived"? Elaborate please.

*on SSDI AND Unemployment. No perception here, but a REAL need to pay bills and survive.* :mad:

A CEO making millions each year for 20 years, suddenly gets canned. He now has no income so what is he entitled to collect?:)

Just that LadySyc. If someone qualifies for a benifit does not mean that they need it. Farm subsidies are a classic example, also, someone with housing assistance, but a $400 month car payment.

So a perceived need is merely one where an individual qualifies for assistance, not that they have a real need for assistance.

I agree with you on your second point, there are times when welfare is necessary if we, as a society, believe that we should help those who otherwise might not be able to maintain a decent standard of living.

UT - I don't know if that 2/3 rds number is correct, but I suspect it's closer than I want to believe. If it's even close to those kind of numbers, then the system is a huge part of the problem.

66 cents to distribute 33 cents, is just sickening.

edit: html and I do not get along

The only problem I have with that is that you don't know every single person that does that, so why get rid of the system entirely because a percentage of people are bogus? In other words, don't punish all for the corruption of a few (not saying that "you" would want that, but just tying in a point). The only way I know that someone would be able to financially qualify for benefits and have a $400/month car payment is that they are not paying for the car themselves (meaning not out of their pockets), and are obviously not reporting that income. Although many more people have been caught being fraudulent, there will be many more that won't.

I know what it's like to try to be financially eligible for benefits. Maybe this is why Syc and I are not married right now. The combined income would definitely bump us out of eligibility status, and yes our rent is on the high side, but that doesn't mean we have extra cash to spend on (mainly) my medical bills.

Gyah, sorry. I've been on a tear today with chronic illness advocacy issues (on medical message boards), so I'm a bit fiesty.

LadySyc - I'm throwing out some ideas, but I really don't feel that I have a good solution. I really don't think I'm well enough informed (is that syntax right? it's late, and I'm tired), to make a judgment.

That said, totally eliminating welfare should be an option. I'm not really all that keen on the idea, and there is probably a happy medium, but the idea should not be discarded at face value.

My mother is on SSDI, and without it she would not be able to afford her house (it's not much, but it is hers); she still drives a POS car (a lot of miles no less, for the paltry job she can work, ironically enough), buys her clothes at a thrift shop, and by no means eats gourmet. I would not want her to lose her welfare (I stick by my definition), but is it really right to rule out an option due to personal bias?

I'm just saying, some people qualify for welfare that have no business receiving welfare. I'm not saying to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I really think the answer lies somewhere in what UT said, about waste, and I really hope Kitsune can find that report (nudge nudge, wink wink :D ).

The people in the system are not the problem, and a straw man has been built to draw our ire ("welfare queens"). This draws attention away from the real issue, inefficiency from within the system. We focus on (relatively) minor trespasses on our tax dollars from the people within the system, when, maybe, we should be focusing on the system itself.

I had the information about waste in the past but it might no longer apply. I do know that, at one point, the taxes collected for social programs would have put every single poor person in the US over the poverty line if actually paid out in benefit money. Of course the amount paid out did not nearly achieve that.

That was around the early 90s though, before welfare reform.

Re: Looks like welfare to me
 

Here's another good example of that.

See the whole thing at:

http://www.reason.com/0403/fe.js.confessions.shtml

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Confessions of a Welfare Queen

How rich bastards like me rip off taxpayers for millions of dollars

John Stossel

Law grinds the poor, and rich men rule the law.

-- Oliver Goldsmith

Ronald Reagan memorably complained about "welfare queens," but he never told us that the biggest welfare queens are the already wealthy. Their lobbyists fawn over politicians, giving them little bits of money -- campaign contributions, plane trips, dinners, golf outings -- in exchange for huge chunks of taxpayers’ money. Millionaires who own your favorite sports teams get subsidies, as do millionaire farmers, corporations, and well-connected plutocrats of every variety. Even successful, wealthy TV journalists.

That’s right, I got some of your money too.

My Life as a Welfare Queen

In 1980 I built a wonderful beach house. Four bedrooms -- every room with a view of the Atlantic Ocean.

It was an absurd place to build, right on the edge of the ocean. All that stood between my house and ruin was a hundred feet of sand. My father told me: "Don’t do it; it’s too risky. No one should build so close to an ocean."

But I built anyway.

Why? As my eager-for-the-business architect said, "Why not? If the ocean destroys your house, the government will pay for a new one."

Right, and I knew that, I was just making a point from within the one that you made. I hope that made sense (damn neuropathy!). ;)

I must admit, I'm not that well versed about the system as much as I should be (I know just enough for what applies to me, and what I have to do as far as getting a benefits review every year for Medicaid and every 6 months for State Chronic Renal Insurance).

And I just want clairfy that the issue of benefits isn't the *only* reason why Syc and I aren't married, but I feel that we have to take that into consideration (about how my benefits would change or not change).

And truth be told, I have no idea how the system can be changed, because by the time anyone gets around to making any major changes, IMO, it'll probably be too late for some of us.

Hm. I think that the easiest solution, if it could be implemented, would be to check up on welfare recipiants periodically. If they are found to be abusing the system, cut off benefits.

I don't look at housing assistance (such as HUD), WIC, unemployment, or EIC as welfare, however, because, in Louisiana, at least,:

HUD does not give away free housing. The rent is on a sliding scale of what the individuals can afford.

WIC is for no- or low-income mothers and children, so that they are guaranteed food that will produce and sustain a healthy child. What it provides is very limited.

Unemployment is money I've paid in via taxes. It's my money anyway, and it's there to help tide people over until they can find a job. It's also limited. You can't get it if you quit a job.

EIC is also my money. It says that I haven't earned such-and-such, and so am entitled to get it back.


When I think of welfare, I think of money. In La, there are two types: direct checks, and the card. I don't have a problem with welfare that is given to people who need it. It could make the difference between getting back on one's feet, or perhaps starving.

Now, as to the "welfare families," people who live on welfare, and teach their children to live on welfare, I think that for every child a welfare mother has, she should lose money. I say this because there are people who have children just to get more money, and the money doesn't go to the kids. We have public clinics at which free birth control can be had, so there's no excuse for popping out children you don't have the means to take care of. Each child born after the mother has accepted welfare should be taken away, at least until she or the father gets a job.

In La., one can only be on welfare for a maximum of five years, lifetime. That means if you get welfare for a year, then get a job, you are eligible for four more years of welfare, should you need it. Once you've accumulated five years' worth, it's over.

Welfare is there for those who need it. I think that there should be that safety net. There are people who work their asses off, and have just enough to pay their bills and keep a roof over their heads, but not enough for decent food. The way I see it, I don't have a problem with them getting welfare. They're working and doing what they can. There are those who have trouble finding a job (slow market, divorced women with children but no job skills, women with children, running from abusive partners) these people are helped to get on their feet by welfare. Our unemployment office offers job skills training as well.

I know how hard it can be to find a job in a slow market. I have two degrees, but when I got laid off from my hospital job, it took me a year to find a job, and then it was a pissant one. Unemployment helped us pay our bills.

Some people don't have families to go to for help or a roof. Welfare can be a lifesaver for them. And not to mention, most people I've known who have gotten welfare were either working or looking for a job, and had children. If the government would employ people to make surprise house checks on welfare recipiants, we could cut out the abusers of the system. Those people piss me off, too. That's MY money they're stealing. But for those who need it, I have absolutely no problem with my taxes being used to feed them and their children.

Right now, though, until the job market picks up, it's the best safety net we have.



Sidhe

Tomas mentioned giving something back to society in exchange for welfare. It reminded me of something I had seen about the work for welfare ( not sure what its called) scheme in operation in michigan. What it sounds like at first glance is a way to get long term unemployed people back into the world of work ( probably a good thing for most) and offset the cost of the welfare aid they get ( possibly a good thing depending upon your political stance)

Nice idea shame about the execution. In reality what it amounts to is an abuse of the most vulnerable in society (the poor and desperate) by wealthy corporations. There was a single mother for instance who had to leave her house at 5 am to get bus to another city in order to work behind a counter selling icecreams to the rich at play in a large mall complex. She left that "job" for which she recieved her state welfare and worked another job for a pittance so low as to leave her still able to qualify for statehelp. By the time she returned home atthe end of the day her son was long since in bed. Even with the job and the wlefare programme she was still unable to meet her rent and was evicted. She and her son went to stay at her brother's house where her son found a gun wrapped in cloth under her brothers bed. ( it was a rough neighbourhood,) Perhaps had she been able to stay and raise her 6 year old son herself he might not have been unattended during his morning pre school routine and wouldnt have been able to take the gun to his school and shoot a fellow pupil. Alas she was probably still travelling when he got to school having left before it was light.

A graphic example sure, and not the inevitable consequence of poverty or work for welfare. It raises an interesting political issue though. Why are corporations allowed to use slave labour? If the choice is starve on the streets or accept whatever conditions your employer deems suitable up to and including a life of work for foodstamps .....that surely is a brand of subtle slavery.

I'm getting sick of the material world, any one know of any monastaries that will take atheists?

Do Unitarians have monestaries? Probably not in Texas, at least.

Try the Buddhists.

Yeah I guess the Buddhists would be my best bet, I'm just not to sure if they are into the beer brewing thing

http://home.att.net/~marcobrau//monk.jpg

"Alcohol has a small hut enduring place in Buddhist practice, Zen masters have exhibited a fondness for sake, and liquor is used ceremonially in tantric feasts, while chang, a potent Tibetan barley-beer is consumed by monks and lay practitioners in tantric ceremonies (as well as for fun) throughout the Himalayas."

And then there's always the green tea...

ok, I'm in! where do I sign up?