Welfare

[Archer]

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?