When Welfare Goes Wrong...

[ZenGum]

There was a case in Australia where a private company won a contract to help long term unemployed.
I cannot remember the numbers exactly but the rest of this is correct:
They were paid $5,000 for each long-term (more than two years)unemployed person they helped. "Helped" was defined as being in paid work for at least 30 hours a week for four weeks.
So the company had them sit at a desk and phone businesses in the yellow pages asking if they had any vacancies, which if there were, were listed on the company's placement service.
They paid the person $15/hour, kept this up for four weeks, and then finished the contract, i.e. dump the person and get a new one. Repeat cycle.
Expenses = $1,800 in wages, plus phone calls. Income = $5000 plus any job leads. Actual help delivered to unemployed person = minimal.

Some people rip off the system. Sometimes, they are wearing suits and ties. Sometime, trakkies, hoodies and ugg boots.

[monster]

So, just to take a slightly different tack (but not much), there is a program run by a local newspaper here called "Warm The Children". Families in need are referred by social workers, teachers etc, and they are given up to $90 per child to spend on new winter clothing at a local store. To ensure this happens, each family is assigned a volunteer shopper who has to sign off on the purchase order that the money was spent on appropriate clothing. They find it hard to find volunteers because it's a "police" job. But they have a lot of money to spend because people like to buy new winter coats for poor kids. It seems to me that they could "do so much more good" If they gave twice as many families $50/child gift certificates (non-transferable) for alocal nice second hand store. Possibly the Salvation Army. And then the families wouldn't need volunteer shoppers -the nicest things those places sell are the clothes.

But no, apparently people want to buy new winter coats for poor children, so more money if raised if this is the plan. and more families get helped, despite the product being five times more expensive. So the nice used clothes stay in the thrift stores to be bought by skinflints like me.

I am a volunteer shopper for the first time this year (they're desperate, nobody wants to play shopping police) and I'm thinking it might feel weird spending more on one child than I do on all of mine together, when they're the ones who can't afford the clothes and I could if I chose to? But perhaps because thriftiness is not my primary reason for buying second-hand, I can take pride in finding a bargain and being environmentally friendly and supporting a good cause. Maybe if second-hand shopping was a necessity for me, and I needed charity to clothe my kids for winter, getting nice new clothes would sweeten the pill?

OK having typed it out and though about it some more, it probably won't feel weird. Just sad that it's the way it has to be to get those kids into warm clothing. but at least when they outgrow them, maybe they'll get recycled through a second-hand store and bought by people like me.

[Shawnee123]

Ty Webb: You know who that guy was, Danny?

Danny Noonan: Bob Hope?

Ty Webb: Ha ha... No, that guy was Mitch Comstein, my roommate. He was a good guy.

[classicman]

(CNSNews.com) – As a candidate for president, Barack Obama decried the financial toll that the Iraq war was taking on the economy, but Obama’s proposed spending on welfare through 2010 will eclipse Bush’s war spending by more than $260 billion.

“Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned,” then-Sen. Barack Obama told a Charleston, W.V., crowd in March 2008. “This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.”

During the entire administration of George W. Bush, the Iraq war cost a total of $622 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year--2010--more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.

Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. This will lead to a spending total of $10.3 trillion over the next decade on various welfare programs. These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four. Among that total, $7.5 trillion will be federal money and $2.8 trillion will be federally mandated state expenditures.

In that same West Virginia speech last year, Obama said, “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”

The Heritage study says, “Applying that same standard to means-tested welfare spending reveals that welfare will cost each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in 2010.”

Link

It's still Bush's fault right? We are just now paying the tab for he party that was.

Originally Posted by classicman

Link

It's still Bush's fault right? We are just now paying the tab for he party that was.

Comparing Obama "welfare" spending to Bush war spending = apple and oranges.

A more relevant comparison would be Obama's spending on these social programs compared to Bush's spending on the same programs...and then also factor in that they may have increased as a result of the 07-08 recession.

[Pie]

Originally Posted by Redux

...as a result of the 07-08-09-10 recession.

FTFY.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

Link

It's still Bush's fault right? We are just now paying the tab for he party that was.

Just let them and their children starve.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Again, American vs UK citizens. It does seem that an awful lot of US citizens are genetically lazy.

Genetically? I know you didn't mean genetically.

I hope.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Again, American vs UK citizens. It does seem that an awful lot of US citizens are genetically lazy. If they are not governed by a punitive system then they will take every opportunity not to work.

Luckily, there is only a minority of people in this country who live this way. Of course we have our own burden of the generally criminally minded, drug addicts of one sort of another etc. But I appreciate the American fear that if you had better welfare, just about every American would take advantage of it. We do have a welfare state and not every Brit takes advantage of it, lucky old us.

Americans are hard working. Americans hate welfare and would not take advantage of it in droves if the government offered better welfare. Europe doesn't. We are all of the same race. We are not genetically, generally or otherwise a lazy nation. It's a very small percent of people who abuse a system as it is in every good hard working country.

Originally Posted by smoothmoniker

you mean a punitive system like the free market?

I don't know wtf she means.

Originally Posted by skysidhe

Genetically? I know you didn't mean genetically.

I hope.

I can't believe I picked out one word to focus on when the whole post is a horribly biased.

Americans are not genetically or any other way inclined to take advantage of welfare.

Americans broke from Britain which would make the genetically inclined laziness statement ironic at best.

Our founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves.

President Obama’s welfare spending will reach $888 billion in a single fiscal year--2010--more than the Bush administration spent on war in Iraq from the first “shock and awe” attack in 2003 until Bush left office in January.

Obama’s spending proposals call for the largest increases in welfare benefits in U.S. history, according to a report by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank....These include cash payments, food, housing, Medicaid and various social services for low-income Americans and those at 200 percent of the poverty level, or $44,000 for a family of four.

The Heritage Foundation characterization of "welfare" spending is really appalling.

The actual numbers for welfare/income security programs is around $400B (est) and if you add Medicaid..another $250B (est).

So I'm assuming Heritage is including unemployment compensation, the self-funded SCHIP program, and I have no clue what else, in order to come up with their fear mongering number of $888B

[Pie]

They're probably also including defense-related spending going to Boeing, too. </snark>

Originally Posted by Pie

They're probably also including defense-related spending going to Boeing, too. </snark>

Corporate welfare is a different slice of the pie.

But then when/if they enact legislation to de-fund or prohibit future funding to ACORN, they might just have to include grants/contracts to companies like Haliburton, Blackwater Security, and nearly every defense contractor that "cheated" on their contract or had employees who broke the law or engaged in questionably activities while on the job.

[classicman]

Sheesh...

[DanaC]

@ Sky: Sundae wasn't actually suggesting that Americans are genetically lazy.

Americans broke from Britain which would make the genetically inclined laziness statement ironic at best.

And there's the clincher. It's that damned irony again. You've used the word 'ironic' without in any way taking on board the ironic nature of the post. 'At best'? Which means you actually consider the idea that she really does think Americans are genetically lazy? Wouldn't that kind of fly in the face of everything we all know about Sundae? Somewhat out of character maybe? Colloquially (and i realise this may be different for you than for me, and I suppose that's kind of the point)...colloquially that phrase, unless accompanied by the sister statement 'at worst....etc' generally denotes that the 'at best' is either unlikely, or barely less negative than the 'worst' in nature.

It wasn't 'ironic..at best' it was just plain old irony.


I am feeling most irritable. One too many episodes of House.

[skysidhe]

well ya Dana C. Of course.


One does get irritable when confronted with the ridiculous and the bizarre.