The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-23-2000, 07:29 PM
wevets wevets is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
I've heard a lot of vague tales about how people on welfare or begging for money make a good living. They usually say something like 'welfare homes have color TVs, satellite dishes, etc.' or 'a guy can make more panhandling on the street than in a minimum wage job.'

I'm a bit skeptical of all this. It strikes me that people and the gov't aren't really all that generous, and that these stories may be propaganda or to convince voters that welfare should be reduced or eliminated, or urban legends.

What's the dope on this? How good a living can a welfare recipient possibly have? How much does the gov't give you? I know this will vary from state to state, but I'm curious.

Thanks,
-Steve

------------------
"Heyyyy sexy mama! Wanna kill all humans?" -Bender, Futurama

"Your game shows reward knowledge. Ours punish ignorance!" -The Simpsons
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 03-23-2000, 08:14 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 36,286
There are a couple of different issues, here.

Panhandling is a form of "selling" in which the panhandler "sells" either a good feeling (for having helped an unfortunate), a sense of relief (for having escaped a beggar), or entertainment (depending on how good the spiel is). A good panhandler can probably make much more than the minimum wage. This is not a new idea: Arthur Conan Doyle had a story in which he was hired to find out where a respected man was disapearing each day--he was panhandling; the Three-Penny Opera used the idea of organizing panhandlers as a basic plot device.

On the other hand, the typical strung-out druggie or new-to-the-city runaway kid is not likely to be among the best of panhandlers, and they probably barely get by.

Welfare, as an issue, is pretty large, too. Over two thirds of the families who go onto welfare find themselves there under extraordinary circumstances and work their way off in less than two years. (This is why the recent "Two years and out" rules were so popular among politicians. They knew that, statistically, the majority of the working poor and middle-class (the ones who might vote) who suddenly found themselves looking for assistance were not generally going to be affected by the two-year limit.) Of the remaining third, some number would have gotten off welfare in three years, four years, etc., down to the (unfortunately sizable) group of people who have become an underclass with multiple generations living on welfare. As with any good-sized group, there are people who know how to work the system. Sometimes through "off-record" jobs and sometimes through crimes, many of these people are able to set themselves up in a lifestyle that almost seems affluent. This is not "typical" of those people, but real numbers are hard to find and most people use the numbers that agree with their own expectations.

My wife provided home health care in the inner city for people whose only access to medicine was through Medicaid. She encountered obvious frauds and she encountered people who lived in constant desperation. She did not come home with an accurate census (or even a reliable statistical sampling) of how many people fit into each category.

The problem, at this point, is determining who and how many people are skating by on our tax money. Depending on your personal background and political leanings, you are liable to say talk about the poor, oppressed masses under the heels of the people-grinding capitalist system, or you are liable to talk about Cadillac-driving welfare queens who laugh at honest working folk.

The reality is not at either end of that spectrum. The conservatives have taken great (justified) delight in pointing to states like Wisconsin (which instituted workfare and two-year limits several years before the Feds) and noting that the welfare roles have dropped dramatically and we are not finding the bodies of massive numbers of starvation victims in the streets of Milwaukee and Madison. The liberals (at this point) point to the ever-expanding economy that we are currently experiencing (which allows far more people to find jobs) and note that a hiccup in that progress may, under the new rules, actually cause people to starve.

There is enough propaganda on both sides to choke any honest seeker of truth.

------------------
Tom~
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-24-2000, 12:52 AM
SingleDad SingleDad is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,344
I checked out the California state budget at the California Budget Project, figuring California is a large state with a substantial urban population.

The top four expenditures for FY 2000-2001:
  • K-12 Education at 42%
  • Health and Human Services at 27% ($56.6 billion)
  • Higher Education at 13%
  • Corrections at 8%

From the The California Department of Finance Health and Human Services Budget:

Of the HHS budget (at $1.1 billion, including local contributions), almost half (40.6%) is spent on Medi-Cal, California's Medicare supplement program.

Quote:
The California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program implements California’s version of the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The CalWORKs program replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program on January 1, 1998.

The CalWORKs program is California’s largest cash aid program for children and families designed to provide temporary assistance to meet basic needs (shelter, food, and clothing) in times of crisis. While providing time-limited assistance, the program also promotes self-sufficiency by establishing work requirements and encouraging personal accountability. The program recognizes the differences among counties and affords them maximum program design and funding flexibility to better ensure successful implementation at the local level.
...
The revised 1999-00 caseload trend projects 589,000 cases with 1,685,000 recipients. Full implementation of CalWORKs and continued, though moderating, job growth in 2000-01 is expected to result in a further decline in caseload trend to 557,000 cases and 1,582,000 recipients.
...
In total, CalWORKs {California's welfare program} expenditures for 2000-01 are proposed to be $6.9 billion, compared to $7.2 billion in 1999-00. Of the $6.9 billion, $5.7 billion is budgeted within DSS {Department of Social Services}.
...
...the monthly cash grant level for a family of three in Region I {is} $649 and $618 in Region II.
------------------
If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-24-2000, 02:49 PM
Olentzero Olentzero is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Panhandling isn't a real measure of self-sufficiency, in my book; living without a fixed income, address, or employment and the accompanying benefits isn't my idea of taking good care of yourself. Though I admire Bertholt Brecht and have read the entire Sherlock Holmes canon, I'd need something more than two literary works to even consider tomndebb's claim that panhandling can pay well.
wevets has got a pretty good grasp on the subject of welfare - the rhetoric spouting from Capitol Hill and the White House is aimed at eroding public resistance to the slashing of benefits. The gristle that particularly sticks in my throat is the rhetoric on 'Black welfare queens', indicating that the welfare programs are being sucked dry by hordes of lazy minorities, when in fact the majority of welfare recipients in the United States are white.
I do agree that a large number of people on welfare spend approximately two years on the rolls, due to exceptional circumstances; I disagree with the policy that people whose situations are worse than that should be made to conform to those guidelines.
Wisconsin's program certainly has not generated a Third World state of things by curtailing its welfare program, but it *has* had negative effects. On particularly telling example is the rise in clientele at food pantries run by churches and other charities. More and more of this clientele is made up of families, even families where one parent is employed.
tomndebb bring up a salient point, however:
Quote:
The problem, at this point, is determining who and how many people are skating by on our tax money.
Considering the fact that Congress recently passed a raise in the minimum wage of $1.00 an hour over the next two years but had to tie a $123 billion inheritance tax cut that benefits only the richest 2% of the U.S. population, I'd say it's pretty easy to spot who that is.

------------------
All I wanna do is to thank you, even though I don't know who you are...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-24-2000, 02:52 PM
Olentzero Olentzero is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Sorry, that should read:

"...had to tie in a [tax cut] in order to ensure its passing, I'd say..."

------------------
All I wanna do is to thank you, even though I don't know who you are...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-24-2000, 03:02 PM
egkelly egkelly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
This subject is an interesting one for me. Used to believe that welfare was a temporary situation-caused by a job loss, death, etc. However, it seems clear that there are a significant group of recipeints who look on collecting a check AS THEIR "JOB". I've noticed another curious thing-nobody ever points out that welfare itself is only one small part-there are(1) housing grants/vouchers(2)clothing allowances(3) free medical care (4) education grants (5) food stamps (6) free job training, etc. If you add up all of the cash/non-cash benefits, you would find that "welfare" probably offers a higher living standard than many jobs. If this is indeed true, why would we expect any rational person to abandon it?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-24-2000, 03:37 PM
CurtC CurtC is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Quote:
Tomndebb wrote:
Depending on your personal background and political leanings, you are liable to say talk about the poor, oppressed masses under the heels of the people-grinding capitalist system, or you are liable to talk about Cadillac-driving welfare queens who laugh at honest working folk.
You got the left half correct I think, but we on the right half generally don't make the argument you attribute to us. We're more likely to talk about the fact that you get more of what you pay for - pay people to stay home and have kids, and that's what they'll do. At least more people would than would be doing it if we weren't encouraging it.

At the risk of having this tossed into the Great Debates heap, Olentzero, the fact that Congress resisted a hike in the minimum wage while rolling back the estate tax doesn't IMHO have to do with who gets the money, but with more fundamental issues of right and wrong. I think it's fundamentally wrong for the government to tell me that if I agree to sweep someone's floor for fifty cents an hour, and that someone agrees, that our agreement is illegal. It's none of their *&#@ business. And if I work and make an income to provide for my family, paying tax on that income, it's fundamentally wrong for the government to confiscate half of it just because I die.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-24-2000, 03:38 PM
Beadalin Beadalin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
As has already been pointed out, the vast majority of welfare recipients are off welfare within two years, and often in much less time.

The people who stay on, often, can't get off, despite genuine efforts on their part. Let's say you're the head of a family out in, I don't know, Boondocks, Iowa. You aren't educated past high school, if that. You don't have any particular skills. Now you're on welfare. How do you obtain job skills? Where in your town can you get training? And let's say you do get training-- why should anyone hire you? How do you make a good impression at an interview when new clothes and in some cases basic hygiene are unavailable?

A high percentage (I'll try to find the exact number) of welfare recipients live in rural areas, belying the ghetto stereotype. Rural America faces some unique issues that are easily overlooked. Family farms are becoming rarer and rarer, and even farm conglomerates are often operating under generations of debt. When farms go under, where do the families go? It costs a hell of a lot of money to move, even if employment is found elsewhere.

And a lot of times, the employment available just doesn't make ends meet. A job with BP (meat packing) or Wal-Mart or Target pay minimum wage, rarely more, and full-time positions, even at mimimum wage, aren't always available. So a person can easily be employed and still need welfare assistance.

Anyway I think the instances cited in the OP are extremely rare. Sure, there are people who work the system, but mostly welfare is supporting people who are using it honestly, and are still barely above the poverty line.



------------------
"It says, I choo-choo-choose you. And it's got a picture of a train."
-- Ralph Wiggum
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-24-2000, 04:15 PM
Olentzero Olentzero is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Congress didn't resist the pay raise, Curt. They passed it. But they had to throw in a sop to the absurdly rich in order to get it passed.
And I think it's fundamentally wrong for someone to offer someone else fifty cents an hour for work when a) the employer makes that much more profit off of his employee's work by keeping the wage that low, and b) fifty cents an hour is nowhere near enough to live on. Hell, if the minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be about $15 an hour these days. But I see you've boiled the question down to what rights the government has to tell us this or that, so I'm guessing you're a libertarian, correct? Fundamental conflict of perspective here, and if I kept answering your challenges there'd be no way this thread could escape the Pit. And I prefer not to consign threads to that fate.
Beadalin's got a good grip on the question, too... I'm firmly in that camp.

------------------
All I wanna do is to thank you, even though I don't know who you are...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-24-2000, 04:15 PM
SoMoMom SoMoMom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
It's been awhile since I've studied this subject but at one point it would cost more to track down the few people that work the system than what they were actually taking from aid programs. Some volunteers got together and did stuff like make sure no checks were being mailed to people that were incarcerated and stuff like that. I don't know if that's still going on.

It is important to remember that most people that receive aid are in a temporary situation that was not planned and could not have been forseen. Others have permanent disabilities which do not allow them the opportunity to get off of aid. We can't forget about those people when we are making reforms.

Now, I want to talk about WIC. Why are we paying money for artificial infant milk when the mothers have the good stuff for free? It's much cheaper to feed mom some food than to buy the infant milk formulas. (I won't even go into the lower medical costs from a healthier baby) And when did WIC become a dumping ground for surplus agricultural products instead of a nutritional program? Or was it always like that? No, it's still a great program because it at least tries to teach the recipients about nutrition, but what food the families receive is directly related to what is a surplus at the time. It makes no sense to me. I believe at the moment the items that they are giving away in huge amounts (that no one could possibly use that much of) are cheese and peanut butter. About twenty years ago it was cheese and butter. Now butterfat is more demand.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-24-2000, 06:48 PM
handy handy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Pacific Grove, Calif
Posts: 17,493
Hey, wevets, if you are talking about Corporate welfare, you're talking some really big money....

But I suppose it's social welfare? Alright lets get some real numbers. In 1998 a mother with one child in mid-California got $479.00
cash & about $60.00 in food stamps. That's all. The rent for a one bedroom in that area, about $600.00. PG&E about $40.00 a month.

By comparsion, a person on a min wage job at $5.25 an hour would make about $850.00 per month & would pay taxes; but get most of that back as a refund.

A deaf person selling cards, 'Im deaf, Im selling this card ..' can take in about $1,500 -$2000 per month in a major area, like SF or SD.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-24-2000, 10:59 PM
SingleDad SingleDad is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 1,344
I think that probably most welfare recipients are actually foreign agents attempting to sap the will of the American people... No cites, but I think I recall reading this in "American Nutjob" sometime in the '80s

My point is that if you're making a point about what's actually happening (e.g. "If you add up all of the cash/non-cash benefits, you would find that "welfare" probably offers a higher living standard than many jobs") then you need to support your assertion.

Cites please!

------------------
If Cecil Adams did not exist, we would be obliged to create Him.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-25-2000, 01:57 AM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 25,508
In some cases, people can create a pretty good lifestyle for themselves by knowing how to take advantage of all the various programs available, 'double dipping' into two programs that offer the same benefits (i.e. getting food stamps, then collecting free food from charitable organizations, subscribing to child-nutrition programs, etc.).

Some areas have loopholes that let people essentially get paid twice for the same hardship (i.e. a free lunch program for the kids, plus a food subsidy that includes the cost of kid's lunch). Rent subsidies add to the effective income, although they aren't shown as such in the figures you see for how much welfare recipients earn. Welfare recipients often get other subsidies or services that add up to a LOT of money. Free bus passes, medical care, clothing from Goodwill or the Salvation Army, free legal services, free education or employment training programs, etc.

The catch to all this is that a lot of people who are on welfare are on it because they lack precisely those skills that would allow them to figure all this out and take advantage of even all the legitimate programs available to them, let alone to figure out how to scam all the other ones.

On the other hand, if you're a low-income working person supporting a family on $15/hr, your standard of living may be lower than a welfare recipient after you pay for the cost of employment, health care, job training, transportation, taxes, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-25-2000, 04:54 AM
spankboy spankboy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
The argument I had heard for folks that can't get off welfare revolved around child care. Say you have two young kids, and try to get a straight job working at Bob's Burgers. Bob's pays $7.00/hr, so that's $56/day before taxes. My guess is that child care for two young kids for 8-9 hours leaves very little extra (if any) for rent, food, and so on. Plus, Bob's might not have as good a medical care program as the gov't is willing to shell out for the disadvantaged. And of course, transportation-even the city bus isn't free.

Does this jibe with other folks' perceptions?


------------------
"This is going to take a special blend of psychology and extreme violence."
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-25-2000, 07:58 AM
SoMoMom SoMoMom is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Well, I did have to quit a job that I enjoyed (minimum wage) after my daughter was born because I couldn't afford childcare. Luckily my husband had a good job with insurance and everything. We figured it out after 3 months and I was making $10 a month after gas and childcare.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-25-2000, 08:17 AM
Johnny L.A. Johnny L.A. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 48,178
If the government paid for abortions, then there would be fewer children for people to pay for out of their income. I'm not saying that people on welfare should be forced to abort, but having the option would help those who would rather not have kids.

Yes, I know abstinence is a good way not to get pregnant or to get someone pregnant; but I think most people would prefer not to practice it. I think it would be cheaper for the government to subsidize abortion-on-demand than it would be to support a child for 18 years of school, medical care, etc.


------------------
"I must leave this planet, if only for an hour." -- Antoine de St. Exupéry

Are you a turtle?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-25-2000, 09:23 AM
Jophiel Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Well, getting away from the political debates, you might want to check out this link: http://www.pbs.org/weblab/needcom/focusgroup/
which will have more opinions on beggars and panhandlers (from both actual panhandlers and from typical net folk looking to babble about something) than any one man could ever want to read.

------------------
"I guess one person can make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn't."
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-25-2000, 09:27 AM
Jophiel Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Hmmm.. the link I gave, while accurate, doesn't go exactly where I had hoped. Look at: http://www.pbs.org/weblab/needcom/fo...p/primbio.html
instead. According to some of these people, the amount they make averages from $8/day to $100/day depending on the person and their approach. Quite a range but even an average would fall around the $40-$50 range.

------------------
"I guess one person can make a difference, although most of the time they probably shouldn't."
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-25-2000, 09:35 AM
MissMonica7 MissMonica7 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Now, I want to talk about WIC. Why are we paying money for artificial infant milk when the mothers have the good stuff for free? It's much cheaper to feed mom some food than to buy the infant milk formulas. (I won't even go into the lower medical costs from a healthier baby) And when did WIC become a dumping ground for surplus agricultural products instead of a nutritional program? Or was it always like that? No, it's still a great program because it at least tries to teach the recipients about nutrition, but what food the families receive is directly related to what is a surplus at the time. It makes no sense to me. I believe at the moment the items that they are giving away in huge amounts (that no one could possibly use that much of) are cheese and peanut butter. About twenty years ago it was cheese and butter. Now butterfat is more demand.

WIC does endorse breastfeeding, and will consistently persuade these mothers to breastfeed instead of bottle feed. They do believe that breastmilk is best. But, not every single person is going to do this, so WIC has the responsibility of making sure the baby gets fed, which is why they do distribute infant formula (only iron containing). Also, the allowed foods on the mothers shopping list aren't necessarily surplus foods, and the lists dont change according to what the government has more of. Just my two cents...

back to the topic of welfare...i'll agree that some on welfare do not appear poor, nor choose to spend their money wisely...which is why they may be on welfare in the first place...

------------------
"I am so smart, I am so smart, s-m-r-t, i mean s-m-a-r-t"
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-25-2000, 10:00 AM
handy handy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Pacific Grove, Calif
Posts: 17,493
spankboy, you have the right assumption.

YOO HOO Folks, as if you didn't notice, Clinton abolished Welfare like two years back. It's not happening in the US anymore. Corporate welfare is, however.

Note: If you want house assistance, you can only get a min. situation. In other words, you are LIMITED to how high the rent is, which they set on a market analysis [some of these analysises are 5 years old]. Then you MUST get an apt or house that is at that rate or lower.
Like for example, $500 [for a one bedroom barely gets you in the ghetto].

The Dictionary of Misinformation, if you can find it, covers the old welfare misinformation. If you read the section on welfare, it explains that these people really want to work.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-25-2000, 03:16 PM
wevets wevets is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Lots of info to look up. Thanks, especially to those of you who posted figures, sources, and links! This is a great place to get questions answered!
-Steve
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-25-2000, 07:40 PM
geebee geebee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
I was born on welfare. It sucked. My parents didn't care about anything except booze and how to get something they felt they were entitled to. I got a job when I was 13, so I could support myself (food every day, that kind of thing). I can't speak for everyone who has ever been on welfare, but from personal experience, there was never enough money to survive, especially if you had to pay for your own beer, too. I grew up, worked hard and would eat rice every day for five years before I ever accepted money from anyone that I had not earned.
The bad thing about welfare is that people "think" they deserve it. That "corporations" should support them. You know what? Corporations don't just start themselves. They are started by some guy sweating his ass off 15 hours a day to build something. Then the goverment takes his money to support someone else who doesn't think he has to get out of bed in the morning. THEN, if the government decides not to take as much of his money from him, someone calls that "corporate welfare".
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-25-2000, 09:53 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 36,286
I suspect that giving mining companies the rights to lease land at artificially deflated (as in 19th century) prices has nothing to do with taking money from an entrepeneur who worked 15 hour days to build his own company.

There is fraud on welfare.
There are certain groups of people who have become generational welfare recipients.

However,

There are individuals/families who are legitimately aided past rough spots in their lives by government assistance.
There are corporations who get lots of government handouts and sufficient tax breaks that they are not paying their fair share.

------------------
Tom~
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-25-2000, 10:14 PM
matt_mcl matt_mcl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
You know, while each American contributes an average of $415/year to welfare payments, they also contribute $1,388 in corporate subsidies. Why doesn't that stick in your craw?

"It's easy to get all worked up about a mythical bunch of cheaters and chiselers taking us for a ride.... It doesn't seem to take a whole lot of convincing to turn us against the less fortunate in society. Maybe we should be directing our anger elsewhere - like toward Wall Street. Why is it we never think of Big Business when we think of welfare recipients? Companies take more of our tax dollars, and in much more questionable circumstances, than do those who are trying to heat their apartments with a kerosene stove." - Michael Moore, Downsize This!

So let's not get sanctimonious about poor people. Not even over lazy poor people. Wouldn't you rather get worked up over lazy rich people who take three times as much of your money as the poor people (lazy and non-lazy combined)?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-25-2000, 10:26 PM
Prairie Rose Prairie Rose is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Quote:
Originally posted by MissMonica7:

WIC does endorse breastfeeding, and will consistently persuade these mothers to breastfeed instead of bottle feed. They do believe that breastmilk is best. But, not every single person is going to do this, so WIC has the responsibility of making sure the baby gets fed, which is why they do distribute infant formula (only iron containing). Also, the allowed foods on the mothers shopping list aren't necessarily surplus foods, and the lists dont change according to what the government has more of. Just my two cents...

I know a lady (friend of my sister's) who received WIC assistance with her infant. She wisely chose to breastfeed and so WIC continuted the food vouchers she received during her pregnancy for a few staple items.

I totally agree that breastfeeding should be encouraged, especially in this situation. Babies who are breastfed are less likely to be seriously ill, have dental problems, and allergies. See http://www.breastfeeding.com/advocate.html for more information. This means less tax money spent on subsidized medical care, and a healthier population overall.

Pump rental (for working moms) is about a dollar per day (still less than formula!) and could be subsidized by WIC.

Prairie Rose

------------------
If you're not part of the solution you're just scumming up the bottom of the beaker.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-25-2000, 10:47 PM
geebee geebee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Exactly how many people is that corporation required to support, outside of those it pays to work?
No, I don't agree with corporations paying deflated prices, but my point was..a lot of people talk about welfare and welfare reform, but know nothing about it. It's not pretty. And for the most part, it's self-inflicted, or else inflicted upon your own children. It's brutal. It sounds wonderful to provide this service or that service, after all, it's for the children, but in reality, it never ends.
And, no..I would not prefer to slam rich lazy people over poor ones. They are no better and no worse.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-25-2000, 11:50 PM
matt_mcl matt_mcl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
True, but they're more likely to eat tomorrow. We are not supposed to be running our society by social darwinism, so the punishment for laziness (or for despair, or insufficient skills, or whatever the cause) is not supposed to be death by starvation.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-26-2000, 06:29 AM
spankboy spankboy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Wasn't John Wayne among those who were making a good amount of coin by <i>not</i> planting anything on his farmland in Colorado? While I realize we have to keep farm prices up somehow (so family farmers can survive), paying someone to do something they weren't going to do anyway seems wrong.

I agree that corporate welfare is pretty bad-but what's the solution? Some of the examples I'm familiar with are the corporate non-farmers (above), the defense industry (keeping production lines mothballed but ready in case of war), and the tobacco industry (for whatever reasons--votes? the will of Satan?). I doubt that if we cut if the farm loot, that rich guys would all of a sudden go out and buy combines, and tobacco doesn't affect me (hell, the taxes almost outweigh the product cost anyway). What about the defense industry and others I have failed to mention? While I understand the whole 'swords to plowshares' concept, it takes a lot of refrigerators to make up for an Abrams tank. Ideas??

-sb

------------------
"This is going to take a special blend of psychology and extreme violence."
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-26-2000, 08:24 AM
matt_mcl matt_mcl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
I have lived my life and intend to continue doing so under the following beliefs:

1) the reasons why companies (and I'm talking about big-butt corporations here, not mom and pop at the corner) can blackmail us into paying them lots of money (in tax cuts, tax evasion, tax credit, and corporate welfare) is so they don't move elsewhere.

2) "A simple decision by the Group of Seven nations that they want their taxes and intend to collect them would be enough to force a change of direction. After all, the billion-odd citizens of the G7 represent the bulk of the consumer market for the products of the large corporations. Ensuring that they carry their fair tax load is a simple matter of cooperation among those who have a right to a percentage of the national wealth." - John Ralston Saul, The Doubter's Companion

3) a Tobin Tax (very minuscule tax on inflationary currency speculation, which given the volume of such transactions would generate billions a day) if immediately imposed by the same G7 countries would slow down an inflationary bubble which is ready to pop and frankly not that sane to begin with, in addition to instantly paying off the budgets and debts of your average country;

4) that corporations are not persons, and therefore not citizens, so they should not have a voice in the government; the people who make up corporations are citizens, and they have no less of a responsibility to act ethically than anyone else; and

5) Devastating entire communities, impoverishing or exploiting nations, destroying the social fabric, and causing people to starve is not ethical.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-26-2000, 08:35 AM
matt_mcl matt_mcl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Now I know it will be patiently explained to me that the raison-d'etre of a company is profit. So it doesn't have to have ethics like the rest of us mortals. Bullshit. Corporate directors have the same moral responsibility for what they do that you or I do. It's absurd to think that someone loses whatever ethical responsibility they might once have had by being in a company.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-26-2000, 10:38 AM
handy handy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Pacific Grove, Calif
Posts: 17,493
Cecil is never going to answer a welfare question because Clinton has dropped welfare.

Next, a woman I know who was on welfare once said they pay you so little because they want more prostitutes. ALSO, none of you mentioned, especially the OP, that people often & still do, have to PAY BACK their welfare grants. They take a sizeable share of Child Support payments to do this, assuming the creeps eventually are prosecuted enough that they finally pay $100 a month for their kid.

Counting the minutes before this topic gets sent to GD......
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-26-2000, 01:10 PM
manhattan manhattan is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 9,132
Quote:
Originally posted by handy:
Counting the minutes before this topic gets sent to GD......
Actually, I suspect there is more factual input available here, so I'm going to leave it here for now.
But please folks, as a courtesy to your fellow members, don't turn factal inquiries into debates. It's really quite easy to open a topic in the Great Debates section, and you can even post a link here if that's what you want to do. But I'd like to think that people asking questions are entitled to answers, and if I constantly have to send factual OPs to Great Debates because of the responses, the OPs gets cheated.



------------------
NYC IRL III
is on April 15th. Do you have what it takes?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-26-2000, 10:16 PM
timmar68 timmar68 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Handy's right. When I was on welfare the governmemt took my child support (all but $50...that is, when I got it). I also had to sign a paper stating that if I do get a large sum of money (inheritance, lottery winnings) I have to pay them back.

I'm glad it was there for me when I needed it, though. I worked and went back to school and was off it in 2 years.

------------------
MaryAnn
"I don't care if it's the queen!"
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-27-2000, 10:14 AM
handy handy is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Pacific Grove, Calif
Posts: 17,493
Imagine if you were a farmer & someone paid you $100,000 to not farm. That's how some corporate welfare works. Yuck.

1wel•fare \"wel-'far, -'fer\ noun [ME, fr. the phrase wel faren to fare well] (14c)
1 : the state of doing well esp. in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity
2

Let some of those who aren't doing well, have some happiness too.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.